POCSO Act Conviction: Supreme Court Reduces Enhanced Sentence
The case concerns the conviction of Kumar Ghimirey under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The appellant was convicted by the Special Judge (POCSO) and sentenced to seven years of simple imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 50,000 under the POCSO Act and one month of simple imprisonment under Section 341 of the IPC.
The High Court of Sikkim, while dismissing his appeal, altered his conviction to Section 5(m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and enhanced the punishment to ten years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000.
Arguments of the Petitioner
The appellant argued:
- The High Court erred in enhancing the sentence when no appeal for enhancement was filed.
- The trial court had already imposed the maximum punishment under Section 9/10 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
- The sentence should have been capped at five years under Section 10 of the POCSO Act.
Arguments of the Respondent
The state opposed the appeal, stating:
- Under Section 386 of the CrPC, the High Court has the authority to alter the finding and increase the punishment.
- The evidence clearly established an offense under Section 5(m) of the POCSO Act, warranting a minimum sentence of ten years.
- The appellant was convicted of aggravated penetrative sexual assault, justifying the enhanced sentence.
Key Observations by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed:
“As per Section 386(b) of CrPC, in an appeal from a conviction, although the Appellate Court can alter the finding, maintaining the sentence, or alter the extent of the sentence, it cannot enhance the same unless proper notice is given to the accused.”
The court noted that the High Court had enhanced the sentence without issuing a notice of enhancement to the appellant, which violated procedural fairness.
Judgment
The Supreme Court ruled that the enhancement of the sentence from seven to ten years was not in accordance with the prescribed legal procedure. Therefore, the enhanced sentence was set aside, and the original sentence of seven years of simple imprisonment and one month under Section 341 of IPC was restored.
Thus, the petition was partially allowed, with the conviction upheld but the sentence enhancement reversed.
Petitioner Name: Kumar Ghimirey.Respondent Name: State of Sikkim.Judgment By: Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice K.M. Joseph.Place Of Incident: Sikkim.Judgment Date: 22-04-2019.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: Kumar Ghimirey vs State of Sikkim Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 22-04-2019.pdf
Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment
See all petitions in Juvenile Justice
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Judgment by Ashok Bhushan
See all petitions in Judgment by K.M. Joseph
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments April 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments
See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
