POCSO Act Prevails Over IPC, But Where IPC Prescribes a Harsher Punishment, It Must Apply Where Father’s Betrayal of His Daughter’s Trust: Supreme Court

Higher Punishment Prevails in Child Sexual Assault Cases - In a significant ruling Supreme Court of India upheld the conviction of a father for raping his nine-year-old daughter, but modified the sentence imposed by the High Court, which had directed that he remain in prison for the remainder of his natural life. The Court ruled that while the POCSO Act has overriding effect over the IPC, when both laws prescribe punishment, the one with the higher sentence must be applied.

Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, delivering the judgment in Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh v. State of U.P., observed: "Section 42A of the POCSO Act ensures that the special law prevails over the IPC in cases of conflict, but Section 42 mandates that when both laws prescribe punishment, the greater one must apply. Courts must ensure that justice is done in a manner that upholds the severity of the offense while staying within legal limits."

The Supreme Court restored the trial court’s sentence of life imprisonment, setting aside the High Court’s directive for life imprisonment till natural death, while enhancing the fine to ₹5,00,000, payable to the victim.

A Heinous Crime: A Father’s Betrayal of His Daughter’s Trust

The case involved Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh, convicted for raping his nine-year-old daughter on October 22, 2015. His wife, Smt. Rajani, filed an FIR at Police Station Chandpur, District Fatehpur, alleging that she had left her minor daughter and son in the custody of her husband while she was away at her parental home.

According to the prosecution: "On the night of October 22, 2015, the accused lured his minor daughter to the rooftop and sexually assaulted her, threatening her into silence. The next morning, she narrated the ordeal to her grandfather, who informed her mother. The accused absconded after the crime."

A medical examination confirmed signs of sexual assault, with redness on the victim’s private parts, though her hymen was found intact. The victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC corroborated the allegations, and the accused was arrested and put on trial.

Trial Court Sentences Accused to Life Imprisonment Under IPC and POCSO Act
The Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur, convicted the accused under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) IPC and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to life imprisonment along with a fine of ₹25,000, with a default sentence of two months.

The Allahabad High Court, while dismissing his appeal, enhanced the punishment, ruling that his life imprisonment must extend for the remainder of his natural life under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) IPC.

The accused then approached the Supreme Court, challenging both his conviction and the enhanced sentence.

Supreme Court: "IPC or POCSO – The Law Prescribing a Harsher Punishment Must Apply"

The Supreme Court rejected the accused’s challenge to his conviction, holding that the evidence against him was overwhelming. However, it examined whether:

Conviction should be recorded only under the POCSO Act, as it is a special law.
The High Court was correct in modifying the sentence to life imprisonment till natural death.

The accused’s counsel argued that: "Since the POCSO Act is a special law, it overrides the IPC, and the conviction should have been recorded only under POCSO."

Interpreting Sections 42 and 42A of the POCSO Act, the Court ruled: "Section 42A ensures that the POCSO Act prevails only in cases of inconsistency, but Section 42 mandates that when both laws prescribe punishment, the stricter one must apply. Therefore, the accused’s conviction under IPC is legally sound."

The Court, however, found that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in enhancing the sentence: "Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) IPC allow courts to impose life imprisonment but do not mandate life imprisonment till natural death in every case. The punishment can range from a minimum of ten years to life imprisonment, and the High Court’s direction exceeded its jurisdiction."

Final Judgment: Life Imprisonment Upheld, High Court’s Enhancement Set Aside
The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, ruling: "The High Court’s direction for life imprisonment till natural death is set aside. The sentence of life imprisonment, as imposed by the trial court, is restored. The accused shall pay a fine of ₹5,00,000, and in default, he shall undergo further imprisonment of two years."

The Court directed that the fine amount be paid to the victim.

"Higher Punishment Must Prevail, But Sentencing Must Follow the Law"
This ruling reaffirms that:

•    The POCSO Act prevails over IPC where there is a conflict, but if IPC prescribes a stricter punishment, it must apply.
•    Courts must impose strict punishment in child sexual assault cases but cannot enhance sentences beyond what the law mandates.
•    Life imprisonment till natural death should only be imposed where explicitly required by law.

By restoring the life imprisonment sentence while ensuring legal correctness in sentencing, the Supreme Court has upheld the principles of justice while respecting statutory limits.

Date of Decision: 07 March 2025