Section 6 of the POCSO Act

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that the amended Section 6 of the POCSO Act cannot be applied retrospectively and modified the sentence to life imprisonment under the unamended provision. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Satauram Mandavi v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. (2025). 

What was the Background of Satauram Mandavi v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. Case? 

• On 26th June 2019, the father of the prosecutrix lodged FIR No. 37/2019 at Police Station Vishrampur, Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh.  
• The complainant stated that on 20th May 2019, he had gone to attend a marriage ceremony in the village along with his wife and mother, leaving their two children at home. 
• The prosecutrix, who was approximately 5 years old at the time, was playing outside the house during their absence. When the family returned and the mother was unable to locate their daughter, she approached the appellant's house to inquire about the child's whereabouts. 
• Upon being questioned by the mother about the missing child, the appellant fled from the scene, which raised suspicions about his involvement in the incident. 
• Registration of Case 
• The FIR was registered against the appellant with allegations that he had lured the minor prosecutrix to his house and committed rape upon her. The case was registered under serious provisions dealing with sexual offences against children. 
• Trial Court Proceedings 
  • The Trial Court framed charges against the appellant under Section 376AB of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.  
    • After considering both oral and documentary evidence presented during the trial, the court recorded findings regarding the appellant's conduct. 
  • The appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 6 of the POCSO Act to life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life, along with a fine of ₹10,000/-. 
• High Court Appeal 
  • The appellant challenged his conviction before the High Court of Chhattisgarh. However, on 5th September 2023, the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed both the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court. 
  • The High Court observed that given the victim was a five-year-old child and considering the grave and heinous nature of the crime committed, no leniency could be shown to the appellant. 
• Supreme Court Appeal 
  • Aggrieved by the High Court's decision upholding his conviction and sentence, the appellant approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, by order dated 30th September 2024, issued notice limited specifically to the question of sentence, indicating that the conviction aspect was not being challenged. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India provides absolute protection against retrospective application of criminal laws. 
  • The constitutional provision clearly states that no person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of a law in force at the time of commission of the act, nor be subjected to a penalty greater than that which might have been inflicted under the law in force at the time of commission of the offence. 
• The Court observed that the incident occurred on 20th May 2019, while the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, 2019 came into force on 16th August 2019. The amendment enhanced the minimum sentence to 20 years and redefined "imprisonment for life" to mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life. 
• The Court noted that the Trial Court erred in applying the amended provisions retrospectively, as the incident in question took place prior to the amendment coming into effect. 
• The Court observed that under the unamended Section 6 of the POCSO Act, which was in force at the time of the offence, the punishment provision read: "Whoever commits aggravated penetrative sexual assault shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine." 
• The Court found that the Constitutional bar against retrospective imposition of a harsher penalty under Article 20(1) is clear and absolute.  
  • The Trial Court, by applying the enhanced sentence introduced by the 2019 Amendment to Section 6 of the POCSO Act, had effectively subjected the appellant to a punishment greater than that which was permissible under the law in force at the time of commission of the offence. 
• This application was held to be clearly violative of the bar contained in Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India. 
• The Court observed that the sentence of "imprisonment for life, meaning remainder of natural life," as per the amended provision, did not exist in the statutory framework on 20th May 2019, the date of the incident.  
  • Under the unamended Section 6, the maximum punishment permissible was imprisonment for life in its conventional sense and not imprisonment till the remainder of natural life. 
• While upholding the conviction of the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, the Court modified the sentence to rigorous imprisonment for life as understood under the unamended statute, and set aside the sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of natural life. The fine of ₹10,000/- was maintained. 

What are the Legal Provisions Referred ? 

Section 6 of POCSO Act (Original vs Amended) 

Original Section 6 (before 2019 amendment): 

• Punishment: Rigorous imprisonment for not less than 10 years but may extend to imprisonment for life 
• "Imprisonment for life" meant conventional life imprisonment (typically 14 years with remission possibilities) 

Amended Section 6 (after August 16, 2019): 

• Punishment: Rigorous imprisonment for not less than 20 years but may extend to imprisonment for life or death 
• "Imprisonment for life" redefined to mean imprisonment for the remainder of natural life (no remission) 
• Significantly harsher penalty structure 

Article 20(1) of the Constitution 

This fundamental right provides two key protections: 

• No Ex-Post-Facto Law: No conviction except under law in force at time of offense 
• No Enhanced Penalty: No penalty greater than what was permissible when the offense was committed 

Retrospective Effect Analysis 

The Constitutional Bar 

Article 20(1) creates an absolute and clear bar against: 

• Applying new criminal laws retrospectively 
• Imposing harsher penalties retroactively 
• This protection is fundamental and cannot be waived 

Application in the Supreme Court Case 

Facts: 

• Offense committed: 20th May, 2019 
• Amendment came into force: 16th August, 2019 
• Trial court applied amended provision retrospectively 

Supreme Court's Ruling: The Court held that applying the 2019 amendment was constitutionally impermissible because: 

1. Temporal Violation: The enhanced penalty didn't exist when the offense was committed 
2. Constitutional Breach: Violated Article 20(1)'s prohibition against retrospective criminal penalties 
3. Unfair Application: Subject imposed a punishment greater than legally permissible at the time of the offense 

Key Legal Principles Established 

1. Prospective Application Only: Criminal law amendments, especially those enhancing penalties, apply only to future offenses 
2. Date of Offense Controls: The law in force on the date of commission determines applicable penalties 
3. No Judicial Discretion: Courts cannot apply harsher retrospective penalties even for heinous crimes 
4. Constitutional Supremacy: Article 20(1) overrides legislative intent to apply enhanced penalties retrospectively 

This judgment observed the constitutional principle that while the legislature can enhance penalties for future deterrence, it cannot retroactively impose harsher punishments, even for the most serious crimes involving children.