Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court on May 26 dismissed a Special Leave Petition seeking a reduction of a 20-year rigorous imprisonment granted to 23-year-old under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) on grounds of "extraordinary circumstances".

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma dismissed the SLP on the grounds that the convict was granted 20 years of punishment, which is the minimum statutorily mandated punishment under Section 6 (Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the POCSO Act. Therefore, the Court does not find any reason to interfere.

The petitioner was convicted of the offence of aggravated sexual assault of a 6-year-old minor under the POCSO Act.

The counsel appearing for the convict requested that the court reduce the sentence using its inherent jurisdiction, as it has done in many cases. She added that the petitioner is only 23 years old and his life will be destroyed by spending 20 years in prison.

The Counsel on facts stated that there was a delay of 6 days in filing the FIR, and both parents are medical assistants somewhere, but did not notice the bleeding or injuries on the victim's body.

Justice Nagarathna remarked: "What is the minimum punishment? 20 years. Both Courts have granted that...There is medicinal evidence as well. You have been granted 20 years under POCSO and not under Section 376 [IPC]. We cannot reduce the sentence if its 20 years. What extraordinary circumstances? Every case [you say its extraordinary circumstances]. Incident happened when? After the amendment [2019 amendment which increased punishment for aggravated sexual assaul]. How do we help you? What's why we asked what is the minimum? The Act does not permit us. It is a henious offence-sexual assault on a 6 years old minor. It is a Parliamentary section which mandates 20 years, how can Court reduce?"

Justice Nagarathna, on perusing the documents, told the Counsel that his plea of juvenility was rejected as he was found to be 18 years and above at the time of commission of the offence.

Thereafter, the Court rejected the plea on the grounds that Section 6, through an amendment in 2019, has increased the minimum statutory punishment to 20 years and Courts cannot exercise their inherent jurisdiction here. The SLP was filed against the January 8, 2024, order of the Bombay High Court.

Case Details: SACHIN Vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA|D No. 24169/2025