Background:

The present case arose from a deeply disturbing incident, in which the appellant, Satauram Mandavi, was accused of luring a five-year-old girl into a secluded location and sexually assaulting her. He was charged under Section 376AB of the IPC (now Section 65(2) BNS) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Following the trial, the Sessions Court convicted him and sentenced him to life imprisonment till the remainder of his natural life, along with a fine of ₹10,000. The conviction and sentence were later affirmed by the Chhattisgarh High Court in September 2023. However, by the time the case reached the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition, the central issue revolved around the applicability of the amended POCSO Act of 2019, which came into effect after the offence was committed and provided for a stricter sentencing framework, including mandatory life imprisonment till death. The appellant argued that imposing a harsher sentence based on the amended provisions violated Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India, which prohibits retrospective criminal penalties.

Issues

1. Whether the enhanced punishment prescribed under the POCSO (Amendment) Act, 2019, specifically life imprisonment till the remainder of natural life- can be applied to an offence committed prior to the amendment, without violating Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India?

Observations:

The following observations were made by the court:

• • The Court emphasized that Article 20(1) of the Constitution prohibits imposing a punishment more severe than what was applicable at the time of the offence.
• • The offence occurred on 20 May 2019, before the POCSO (Amendment) Act, 2019 came into force on 16 August 2019. Therefore, the amended punishment provisions could not be applied.
• • The Court upheld the appellant’s conviction under Section 376AB IPC (now Section 65(2) BNS) and Section 6 of the unamended POCSO Act based on the evidence and findings of the lower courts.
• • The sentence of life imprisonment till the remainder of natural life (imposed under the amended law) was set aside. The Court substituted it with rigorous imprisonment for life under the pre-amendment law.
• • The Court clarified that the protection under Article 20(1) is not discretionary, it is an absolute bar against retrospective harsher penalties, regardless of the seriousness of the crime.
• • Courts must not indirectly apply enhanced punishments by interpreting sentencing laws beyond what was legally available at the time of the offence.

Decision:

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 376AB IPC (now Section 65(2) BNS) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act for the rape of a 5-year-old girl.

• - However, the Court modified the sentence:
• • It set aside the sentence of life imprisonment till the remainder of natural life, which had been imposed by the lower courts under the amended POCSO Act, 2019.
• • Instead, the Court imposed rigorous imprisonment for life, in accordance with the law as it stood on the date of the offence (20 May 2019).
• - The fine of ₹10,000 imposed by the lower court was upheld.
• - The Court held that applying the enhanced punishment under the 2019 amendment would violate Article 20(1) of the Constitution, which prohibits the retrospective application of a harsher penalty.

Why this case matters:

• • Reaffirmation of Article 20(1) – No Retrospective Harsher Punishment.
• • It clarifies that amendments to penal laws, even if aimed at deterring future crimes (like the 2019 POCSO amendment), cannot apply to past offences.
• • It reinforces that judicial discretion must align with constitutional limits.
• • This judgment will serve as a binding precedent in cases where the offence predates a sentencing amendment.
• • Balances Victim Rights with Accused's Constitutional Protections.

Laws related thereto:

Under Constitution:

• Article 20(1): No person shall be convicted of any offence except for violation of the law in force at the time of the 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 the commission of the offence.

Under BNSS:

• Section 65(2): Punishment for rape of a girl under 12 years: Minimum 20 years, extendable to life imprisonment till natural life, or death. Introduced by Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018, but interpreted in light of Article 20(1) where necessary.

Under POCSO:

• Section 6: POCSO Act, 2012 (Pre-Amendment)

Punishes aggravated penetrative sexual assault with rigorous imprisonment not less than 10 years, which may extend to life imprisonment and fine also.

Judicial Precedents:

• Rattan Lal v. State of Punjab (1965): It was held that Beneficial provisions of a new law can apply retrospectively, but not harsher punishments. Reinforces that penal statutes must not operate retrospectively to the detriment of the accused under Article 20(1).

• Mohanlal v. State of Rajasthan (2015): It was held that no one can be punished more severely than what was prescribed by law at the time the offence was committed. Applied Article 20(1) to invalidate enhanced punishment applied retroactively.