Article 20(1) Violated by Retrospective POCSO Sentence: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore Bench recently modified the sentence imposed on a convict in a child rape case, holding that the trial court erred in sentencing him to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life by retrospectively applying amended provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. While affirming the conviction, the division bench clarified that only the punishment permissible under the law in force on the date of the offence could be imposed, in view of the constitutional bar under Article 20(1) of the Constitution.

The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi in a criminal appeal filed by Shiva, who had challenged his conviction and sentence awarded by the VIIth Additional Sessions Judge, Indore.

The case arose from an incident dated April 12, 2012, when a four-year-old girl was sexually assaulted after being lured with a cold drink. According to the prosecution, the child was found bleeding from her genitals near a drain and was immediately taken to hospital. Medical examination confirmed sexual assault, and subsequent investigation led to the arrest of the appellant. The trial court convicted him under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 376(2)(i)(m) IPC, and Sections 3, 4, 5(i)(m) and 6 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to life imprisonment for the remainder of his life.

Before the high court, advocate Mukesh Kumawat, appearing for the appellant, argued false implication, inconsistencies in witness testimony, and alleged lapses in DNA sample collection. It was contended that the prosecutrix had not properly identified the accused and that the presence of DNA of another person created reasonable doubt. These submissions were opposed by Additional Advocate General Sonal Gupta, appearing for the State, which relied on the consistency of the prosecution evidence and the positive DNA report linking the appellant to the offence.

The high court rejected the challenge to conviction, noting that the testimony of the prosecutrix, though recorded in a terrified manner, clearly implicated the accused. The bench observed that corroborative evidence from shop witnesses, recovery of articles from the scene, and the DNA report conclusively established the appellant’s involvement. Court held that minor inconsistencies or procedural objections could not dilute the gravity or proof of the offence, particularly in cases involving sexual violence against children.

However, on the issue of sentence, the bench found merit in the appellant’s argument. Court noted that the offence was committed in 2012, when the unamended POCSO Act was in force. At that time, the maximum punishment prescribed was life imprisonment in its conventional sense. The concept of imprisonment for the remainder of natural life was introduced only through the 2019 amendment to the POCSO Act.

Relying heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision in Satauram Mandavi v. State of Chhattisgarh, the high court reiterated that Article 20(1) of the Constitution prohibits retrospective imposition of a harsher penalty. The bench observed that applying the amended sentencing provisions to an offence committed prior to their enactment amounted to constitutional violation. The trial court, by awarding life imprisonment for the remainder of natural life, had effectively imposed a punishment greater than what the law permitted at the relevant time.

Accordingly, while affirming the conviction under all charged provisions, the high court set aside the sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of natural life. The sentence was modified to rigorous imprisonment for life, as understood under the unamended statutory framework. The fine imposed by the trial court was maintained, and the convictions under Sections 363 and 366 IPC were also upheld.

The criminal appeal was thus partly allowed, with the court emphasising that while crimes against children warrant strict punishment, constitutional safeguards in sentencing cannot be disregarded even in the gravest of cases.

Case Title: Shiva v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Date of Judgment: February 2, 2026

Bench: Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla and Justice Alok Awasthi