Summary and Analysis of 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:
IPC Section 363 (Kidnapping): 5 years rigorous imprisonment + Rs. 500 fine (1 month default).
IPC Section 366 (Kidnapping for illicit intercourse): 5 years rigorous imprisonment + Rs. 500 fine (1 month default).
IPC Section 342 (Wrongful confinement): 1 year imprisonment.
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:
Challenge to Conviction:
Argued that the conviction was erroneous.
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.
On Conviction:
Upheld the conviction as no error was found in the judgments of the Trial Court or High Court.
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:
Sentencing Discretion: Courts must balance severity with mitigating factors, especially in cases involving young offenders.
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.