The Delhi High Court, by a judgment dated 04-05-2026, allowed the present appeal and set aside a judgment dated 18-12-2019 by the Trial Court, convicting the respondent for offences punishable under Section 363/366/342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). The present hearing was on the quantum of sentence as well as on an application under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, seeking release on probation of good conduct.
The convict submitted that his age was 21 years at the time of the commission of the offence and that he was the sole bread earner of his family. He asserted that incarceration at this stage would not only adversely affect his future prospects but would also cause immense economic hardship to his 72-year-old mother. The State submitted that, since Section 6 of the POCSO Act provided for a term of imprisonment of 10 years, the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act could not be extended.
A Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja referred to Sudesh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand (2008) 3 SCC 111 and stated that the provisions of Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act would apply only if the accused was below 21 years of age on the date of the order of conviction and sentence. The Court found that on the date of conviction, the convict was 21 years old, and therefore was not entitled to the benefit of Section 6.
Keeping the objective behind the enactment of the POCSO Act as well as the punishment, the Court opined that the convict was not entitled to a grant of probation under Sections 4 and 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, and dismissed the appeal.
The Court considered that the incident took place in 2014 and that the convict had already been in custody for about 5 years and 7 months, without any previous criminal antecedents. It was opined that interest of justice would be met if minimum sentence was imposed on the convict. Hence, the convict was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 366 of IPC, rigorous imprisonment of 3 years with fine of Rs. 5000/- under Section 363 of IPC, and rigorous imprisonment of 3 months under Section 342 of IPC.
All sentences were to run concurrently and the convict was directed to get a benefit of Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). The Court considered the gravity of the offence and granted the child victim a compensation of Rs. 10.50 lakhs for the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault/rape committed upon her.
Thus, the appeal was disposed of.
Appearances:
For Appellant – Mr. Aman Usman (APP), Mr. Manvendra Yadav, Mr. Atiq Ur Rehman
For Respondent – Mr. Dinesh Malik, Mr. Puneet Jain, Mr. Lavish Arora
