SC Bars Min Sentence Reduction in Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault Cases under POCSO

In a landmark judgement, the Supreme Court of India rejected a High Court order that classified penetrative sexual assault on a juvenile girl under the age of 12 as non-aggravated. 

This landmark decision has far-reaching ramifications for child safety and legal repercussions for horrendous acts. 

The Supreme Court said firmly in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sonu Kushwaha that courts lack the ability to cut minimum terms for offences, notably aggravated sexual assault, as defined in the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).

Upholding Stringent Sentences

The Supreme Court’s decision emphasises the severity of crimes involving minor victims and the necessity for harsh sanctions to secure justice. The bench, composed of Justices Abhay S Oka and Rajesh Bindal, highlighted that the aim of the POCSO Act is to create harsh minimum sentences for a variety of child sexual crimes. 

This is especially clear in Section 6 of the Act, which details the penalty for aggravated penetrative sexual assault and leaves little opportunity for judicial discretion in enforcing the specified minimum term.

Non-Negotiable Nature of Minimum Sentences

In effect, the Supreme Court’s decision reaffirms the non-negotiable character of minimum punishments under the POCSO Act. This ruling recognises the gravity of severe sexual attacks against children and emphasises the need of protecting their physical and psychological well-being. 

Even if the offender had demonstrated attempts to “move forward in life” after getting a mitigated sentence from the High Court, the court unequivocally ruled out any chance of mercy.

An Emphasis on Severity

The court’s reasoning is grounded not only in the statutory provision of a mandatory minimum sentence but also in the exceptionally brutal nature of the respondent’s crime, which demands a correspondingly severe punishment. 

The Verdict’s Impact

As a result of this ruling, the Supreme Court reinstated the trial court’s original conviction, which mandated a 10-year imprisonment term for the offense of aggravated penetrative sexual assault. 

This decision came in response to an earlier alteration by the Allahabad High Court, which had downgraded the conviction from aggravated penetrative sexual assault to penetrative sexual assault, accompanied by a reduced 7-year sentence. This adjustment had been made despite the victim’s age being less than 12 years old.

Upholding Legal Standards

Crucially, Section 5 (m) of the POCSO Act unequivocally designates penetrative sexual assault against a child under 12 years old as an aggravated form of the crime. 

The Supreme Court’s intervention came as a response to an appeal filed by the Uttar Pradesh government, wherein the Court granted permission for the case to proceed. 

Ensuring Accountability

In light of its ruling, the Supreme Court has instructed the convict to surrender within a month. Failure to comply with this directive would lead to the special POCSO court issuing a non-bailable warrant for the convict’s arrest. 

Legal Representation

During the proceedings, Advocate Krishnanand Pandeya and Harsh Pratap Shahi represented the State, presenting the government’s perspective and advocating for justice for the victim. On the other side, Advocate Satish Pandey represented the respondent, presenting their arguments in defence.

Summary

The Supreme Court’s determined decision in the State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sonu Kushwaha case underscored the Supreme Court’s steadfast commitment to preserving the rights and well-being of child victims of sexual assaults. 

By emphasising the need of stringent minimum terms, the Court has given a clear message to those who commit such horrific actions that society would not tolerate any sort of clemency.