The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently dismissed an appeal filed by the State challenging a conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), reprimanding the State for what it called a “mechanical” appeal lacking any real engagement with the law. The appeal related to a judgment handed down by a Special Judge, who had convicted the accused under Sections 5(l) and 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of ₹ 20,000. In addition, the accused had been convicted under Section 376(2)(N) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for rape.
The State argued before the High Court that since the accused was also convicted under the IPC, there was no basis for the trial court to rely solely on the POCSO judgment or to decline a sentence under the IPC offence. However, a two-judge bench comprising Vivek Agarwal and Ramkumar Choubey held that this reasoning disregarded a clear statutory provision — Section 42 of the POCSO Act — which provides for “alternate punishment.” Under this provision, when an act constitutes offences under both the POCSO Act and the IPC, the offender is to be punished under the law prescribing the greater punishment. The High Court observed that the punishment under Section 6 of the POCSO Act (not less than 20 years and possibly life imprisonment) is more severe than the punishment under Section 376(2)(N) of the IPC (not less than ten years, possibly life). Therefore, the POCSO sentence was correctly imposed and the appeal challenging it lacked merit.
Criticizing the State’s conduct, the Court noted that the memo of appeal appeared to have been filed without application of mind, effectively prepared “mechanically” without studying the relevant statutory scheme. In light of this, the Court imposed a cost of ₹ 20,000 on the State to be paid to the High Court Legal Services Committee — but clarified that the amount should not be debited to the public exchequer. Instead, it should be recovered from the delinquent official(s) responsible for sanctioning and drafting the appeal. The State was required to first deposit the amount, with liberty to recover it from the erring official(s).
Additionally, the Court directed a departmental enquiry against the Law Officer of the Law & Legislative Affairs Department who had given the opinion and sanctioned the filing of the appeal without properly reading and applying Section 42 of the POCSO Act. The Court ordered that an enquiry report be submitted in a sealed cover.
In summary, the High Court upheld the trial court’s conviction and sentence under POCSO, rejected the State’s appeal for failing to engage with the relevant statutory provisions, imposed a cost on the State for wasting judicial time, and ordered a departmental enquiry into the conduct of the State’s law officers.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.