Supreme Court To Decide If Division Bench Must Hear 20-Year Sentence Appeals In Karnataka High Court

The issue arose in a convict’s challenge to a 20-year sentence, where the Court has sought clarity on whether such appeals must be heard by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court.

The bench of Justices K V Viswanathan and Vipul M Pancholi issued notice limited to this question, marking the case for further consideration on July 13, 2026. The Court has also requested assistance from the Attorney General for India.

"Let notice be also issued to the learned Attorney General for India to enable the learned Attorney General to assist the Court," it said. 

The plea has been filed by a convict, Barkath, challenging a judgment delivered by a Single Judge Bench of the Karnataka High Court. The High Court had upheld the conviction and 20-year sentence but modified the provision under which the punishment was imposed: from Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 to Section 376-AB of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Before the Supreme Court, Senior Advocate A Sirajudeen, appearing for the petitioner, raised a significant jurisdictional issue. He argued that under Sections 5 and 10 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, appeals involving serious sentences; particularly life imprisonment, are mandatorily heard by a Division Bench. However, the statute does not expressly clarify the coram for appeals involving fixed-term sentences such as 20 years.

Sirajudeen contended that given the gravity of such punishments, appeals involving fixed terms exceeding 14 years should also be heard by a Division Bench. He submitted that “interest of justice requires” parity with life sentence appeals, which are already heard by a two-judge bench. Highlighting judicial practices across the country, he further pointed out that in several High Courts, appeals involving sentences exceeding 10 years are routinely assigned to Division Benches.

The case stems from the sexual assault of an 8-year-old girl known to the accused. According to the prosecution, the incident occurred while the child was staying at the petitioner’s residence during her summer vacation. Following the complaint, an FIR was registered, and the accused was charged under both Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376-AB IPC.

The trial court convicted the petitioner under both provisions but imposed a 20-year rigorous imprisonment sentence under the POCSO Act, along with a fine of ₹50,000. On appeal, the High Court upheld the conviction but altered the basis of sentencing. Relying on Section 42 of the POCSO Act, which provides for awarding higher punishment where overlapping offences exist, the High Court held that Section 376-AB IPC prescribed a more stringent minimum sentence (20 years) compared to the then applicable POCSO provision (minimum 10 years, prior to the 2019 amendment). Accordingly, the sentence was treated as one under the IPC.

Challenging this, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court not only on the merits of the sentence but also on the procedural legality of the High Court’s decision being rendered by a Single Judge.

Case Title: Barkath v. State of Karnataka 

Bench: Justices K V Viswanathan and Vipul M Pancholi

Order Date: April 15, 2026