Daily Research & Judgement

Pintu Thakur v/s Ravi vs State Of Chhattisgarh 2025 INSC 797 - POCSO Case - Sentence Reduced

​

Conviction by Lower Courts:

• The appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Special Court, POCSO Act) in Special Sessions (POCSO) Case No. 36/2020.

• The High Court of Chhattisgarh upheld the conviction vide judgment dated April 26, 2024, in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1686/2023 and 2130/2023.

Charges and Sentences Imposed:

• Sections Convicted Under:

  1. IPC Section 363 (Kidnapping): 5 years rigorous imprisonment + Rs. 500 fine (1 month default).

  2. IPC Section 366 (Kidnapping for illicit intercourse): 5 years rigorous imprisonment + Rs. 500 fine (1 month default).

  3. IPC Section 342 (Wrongful confinement): 1 year imprisonment.

  4. POCSO Act, Section 6 (Aggravated penetrative sexual assault): Life imprisonment (remainder of natural life) + Rs. 15,000 fine (2 months default).

• Sentences to run concurrently.

Appellants’ Submissions:

1. Challenge to Conviction:

   • Argued that the conviction was erroneous.

2. Plea for Sentence Reduction:

   • Contended that the minimum sentence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act is 20 years, but the Trial Court imposed life imprisonment (natural life), which was excessive.

   • Highlighted mitigating factors:

     • Appellants were in their early twenties at the time of the incident.

     • Had already undergone 5 years of incarceration.

State’s Response:

• Opposed the appeal, asserting that:

  • The conviction was justified.

  • Life imprisonment under POCSO Act, Section 6, was legally appropriate.

 

1. On Conviction:

   • Upheld the conviction as no error was found in the judgments of the Trial Court or High Court.

2. On Sentence Reduction:

   • Key Observations:

     • Section 6 of the POCSO Act prescribes a minimum of 20 years (extendable to life imprisonment or death).

     • The Trial Court imposed the harshest punishment (natural life imprisonment) without considering mitigating circumstances.

   • Modified Sentence:

     • Reduced from life imprisonment (natural life) to rigorous imprisonment for 20 years (minimum prescribed under POCSO Act).

   • Reasoning:

     • Appellants’ age (early twenties during the incident).

     • Proportionality: Completing 20 years would place them in their early forties, balancing justice and rehabilitation.

Final Order:

• Appeals allowed in part.

• Sentence under POCSO Act, Section 6 reduced to 20 years.

• Other sentences (under IPC) to remain unchanged (to run concurrently).

Key Legal Principles Affirmed:

1. Sentencing Discretion: Courts must balance severity with mitigating factors, especially in cases involving young offenders.

2. POCSO Act Interpretation: Life imprisonment under Section 6 is not mandatory; the minimum sentence (20 years) can be imposed if circumstances warrant.

Conclusion: - The judgment underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring proportionality in sentencing while upholding the gravity of offenses under the POCSO Act.