Trial courts can exceed minimum term in Pocso cases: Delhi HC

The HC observed that denying trial courts the discretion to impose fixed-term sentences above the minimum would “undermine the entire scheme that allows court to calibrate punishment based on the degree of culpability.”

The Delhi High Court has ruled that trial courts have the authority to impose fixed-term sentences exceeding the minimum punishment prescribed under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act while adjudicating such cases. 

The conviction stemmed from an FIR registered in May 2018 by the victim, who alleged that her father had subjected her to sexual assault while she was asleep.

A bench of justice Sanjeev Narula delivered the verdict on September 16 while dismissing a man’s plea challenging a July 9, 2024, order of a trial court that convicted him for raping and committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault on his 17-year-old daughter and sentenced him to 20 years’ imprisonment. The ruling was released in October. 

The conviction stemmed from an FIR registered in May 2018 by the victim, who alleged that her father had, over a considerable period, subjected her to sexual assault while she was asleep and used threats and violence to prevent disclosure. The assaults had also resulted in her pregnancy, which was later terminated. 

In his appeal, the convict argued that the trial court had exceeded its powers by imposing a fixed term of 20 years, asserting that only constitutional courts could issue such sentences. He contended that Section 6 of the Pocso Act, as it existed when the FIR was registered, prescribed a minimum of 10 years and a maximum of life imprisonment and did not allow a fixed-term sentence beyond this range. He said that the 2019 amendment, which raised the minimum punishment to 20 years and added death in defined cases, could not be retrospectively applied. 

Opposing the plea, additional public prosecutor Mukesh Kumar, representing the Delhi Police, and the victim’s counsel, Inderjeet Sidhu, said the survivor’s testimony remained consistent in all material particulars. They maintained that the punishment was proportionate to the gravity of the offence and reflected “the gravest possible breach of trust.” 

Upholding the conviction and sentence, the high court observed that denying trial courts the discretion to impose fixed-term sentences above the minimum would “undermine the entire scheme that allows court to calibrate punishment based on the degree of culpability.” Justice Narula noted that Parliament had “set a mandatory floor (‘not less than ten years’) and a ceiling (‘may extend to imprisonment for life’),” creating a sentencing band rather than a binary choice. 

“To deny courts the ability to impose, say, 15 or 20 years, would collapse this graded scheme into an all-or-nothing choice, something which is neither textually compelled nor normatively sound,” the bench said, adding that the man’s actions “undermined the very foundation of familial trust and sanctity” and caused lasting physical and psychological harm to the victim.