Read Time: 04 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court recently modified the trial court's order releasing a convict of aggravated sexual assault against a 4-year-old minor under the Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 on imprisonment already undergone and enhanced the sentence to 5 years of rigorous imprisonment.

A bench of Justice Mukta Gupta and Justice Anish Dayal noted, "Section 10 of the POCSO Act provides for a minimum punishment of five years imprisonment... Special Court grossly erred in releasing the respondent on the period already undergone".

The order has been passed in an appeal moved by the Delhi Police against the sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge whereby pursuant to the conviction for offences against a minor aged 4 years punishable under Section 363 (punishment of kidnapping) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 10 of POCSO Act, 2012 the convict namely Pappu was released on the period undergone in prison. 

The High Court bench said that "it had gone through the deposition of the minor victim who was aged 4 years at the time of the incident which was duly proved and not disputed by the defense". The victim in her testimony had informed the Court about what happened during the incident.

After going through the testimony, the bench opined, "Even in the cross-examination of this child victim, nothing has been elucidated to show that the respondent did not commit the offence punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act." It further noted, 

"Section 10 of the POCSO Act reads as under: “Whoever, commits aggravated sexual assault shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

In view of the above, the bench allowed the appeal filed by the Delhi Police and modified the term from the period already undergone to the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years.

Additionally, the bench directed the Station Incharge to hand over the custody of convict to the Superintendent of Central Jail, Tihar, to serve the remaining sentence. 

Case Title: State Vs. Pappu