Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh vs State of U.P.

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

7 March 2025

Case No.

Criminal Appeal No(s). 1257 of 2025

Result

Partly allowed

Bench

Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta

Citation

[2025] 3 S.C.R. 490 : 2025 INSC 335

Acts & Sections

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences… IPC CrPC

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant ought to have been recorded under the IPC or whether the provisions of the Special law, i.e., Section 42A of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, would prevail thereby, vitiating the sentence awarded to the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)

(f) and 376(2)(i) of IPC.

Headnote

Sentence/Sentencing – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – ss.42, 42A – Interpretation – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) – Appellant convicted for offences u/ss.376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i), IPC and ss.3/4, POCSO Act, life imprisonment awarded – Appeal rejected by High Court with certain modification – Plea of the appellant that as the offences were overlapping, POCSO Act being special law would prevail over IPC and hence, the appellant could not have been convicted for both the offences: Held: Conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable u/ss.376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i), IPC and ss.3/4, POCSO Act is wholly justified – Under s.42, POCSO Act, when the alleged acts or omissions constitute offence both under the IPC and the POCSO Act then, the law which prescribes the punishment of greater degree would have to be applied – s.42 and s.42A, POCSO Act operate in completely different spheres – s.42A, POCSO Act cannot be interpreted so as to override the scope and ambit of enabling provision, i.e., s.42, POCSO Act – Since, ss.376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i), IPC provide for a higher sentence as compared to ss.3/4, POCSO Act, the trial Court was justified in choosing the former to award punishment in terms of s.42, POCSO Act – However, the High Court erred in directing that the appellant would have to serve life imprisonment for remainder of his natural life as provided u/ss.376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i), IPC – Under these provisions it is not mandated that the convict must be awarded life imprisonment – The sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the trial Court for the offence u/ss.3/4, POCSO Act revived – For offences punishable u/ss.376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i), IPC, the accused to undergo imprisonment for life, as awarded by the trial Court, without the stipulation that the life term will enure till the natural life of the appellant and fine, as directed. [Paras 19, 21, 23, 25, 26, 30, 31]

Judgment Mehta, J. 1. Heard. 2. Delay condoned. 3. Leave granted. 4. This appeal, preferred on behalf of the appellant-accused1, takes an exception to the judgment dated 2nd August, 2019, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad2 dismissing Jail Appeal No. 6590 of 2016 preferred by the appellant. 5. The Division Bench, while dismissing the appeal, affirmed the judgment and order dated 16th September, 2016, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Court No.2, Fatehpur3 in Sessions Trial No. 06 of 2016, arising out of Case Crime No. 236 of 2015 registered at Police Statio

View Subscription Plans →