Background:

Gyanendra Singh (alias Raja Singh), the father, was convicted by the trial court (2016) for sexually assaulting his 9 year old daughter under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of the IPC (now Section 64(2)(f) and 64(2)(i) of BNS, 2023) and Sections 3 & 4 of the POCSO Act. He received life imprisonment and a fine. The Allahabad High Court (2019) upheld conviction and enhanced the sentence to life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life. Justice Singh appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the sentence enhancement and the concurrent application of IPC and POCSO punishment.

Issues

1. When an offence is punishable under both IPC and POCSO, which punishment prevails under Section 42 of POCSO?

2. Does Section 42A (overriding procedure) of POCSO alter sentencing under Section 42?

3. Was the High Court empowered to increase the sentence without a state appeal for enhancement?

Observations:

The following observations were made by the court:

• • When an act is punishable under both IPC and POCSO, Section 42 mandates that the law with the greater punishment shall apply.
• • The Court reaffirmed that POCSO is not meant to dilute stricter punishments under IPC, but to ensure protection of children with equal or stricter penalties.
• • Section 42A, which gives POCSO overriding effect over other laws, is procedural in nature.
• • It cannot be used to sidestep Section 42, which directly governs substantive punishment.
• • The High Court cannot enhance a sentence (like converting life imprisonment to imprisonment till natural life) without a state appeal or a proper notice to the accused.
• • Such enhancement violates principles of natural justice and the rights of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution.
• • The Court emphasized the need for adequate victim compensation, especially in heinous offences involving children.
• • It granted ₹5 lakhs compensation under Section 357-A CrPC (now under Section 396 BNSS), observing that the survivor must receive some form of restitution from the State.
• • The Supreme Court upheld the conviction as the evidence was reliable, especially the consistent and clear testimony of the minor victim, supported by medical findings.

Decision:

Court laid down the decision as mentioned below:

• • Conviction upheld under both IPC and POCSO for the offence of rape against a minor.
• • The enhanced sentence imposed by the High Court (life imprisonment for the remainder of natural life) was set aside.
• • The sentence awarded by the Trial Court was restored:
• i. Life imprisonment (standard) under IPC
• ii. Fine of ₹5,00,000 to be paid to the victim
• • The Supreme Court reaffirmed that IPC punishment applies due to its greater severity (as per Section 42 of POCSO).

Why this case matters:

• • Clarifies sentencing hierarchy between IPC and POCSO ensuring harsher IPC provisions apply when overlapping with special statutes.
• • Limits High Courts’ power to enhance sentences without state-initiated appeal.
• • Reinforces proportionality in sentencing for heinous crimes under overlapping legal regimes.

Laws related thereto:

Under BNS:

Section 64(2)(f) and 64(2)(i): Relates to rape of a minor girl by a person in a position of trust or authority, including by a relative or guardian.

Under POCSO Act: Sections 3 & 4 (penetrative sexual assault on a child); Section 42 (sentencing rule), Section 42A (procedural override).

Judicial Precedents:

• Swamy Shraddha Nanda v. State of Karnataka (2008) – (Also known as Murli Manohar Mishra case) fixed-term life imprisonment validity.

• Navas @ Mula Navas v. State of Kerala (2024) – guidance on judicial discretion in life sentencing.

• Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI (2025) – reaffirmed Section 42’s supremacy and sentencing rationale