Conviction Under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 3 and 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Overlapping Provisions — Clarification on Sentence Duration — Award of Life Imprisonment Without Stipulation of Natural Life Term

Section 42 of POCSO Act Prevails in Cases of Overlapping Offences — Law Prescribing Greater Punishment to Apply. Section 42A of POCSO Act Addresses Procedural Aspect and Cannot Override Quantum of Punishment. Courts Have Discretion to Impose Fixed-Term Life Sentence Beyond 14 Years — Clarified by Supreme Court Judgments in Swamy Shraddhananda and Navas Cases.

Clarification on Conviction and Sentencing Provisions. (Para 17 to Para 31) Justification of Choosing IPC Provisions for Greater Punishment. (Para 26) Restoration of Trial Court Judgment and Sentence Modification. (Para 30)

Conviction Under Both IPC and POCSO Act Held Justified. High Court Erred in Enhancing Sentence Without Appeal for Enhancement. Sentence Modified — Life Imprisonment Restored Without Stipulation of Natural Life Term

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Constitution of India (COI) — Article 21

2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 313, Section 164

3. Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376(2)(f), 376(2)(i)

4. Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) — Sections 3, 4, 42, 42A

Subjects:
Sentencing Provisions — Overriding Effect — Special Law — General Law — Enhanced Punishment — Natural Life Term — Conviction Justification — Quantum of Punishment — Procedural Aspect — Life Imprisonment Clarification

Nature of Litigation:
Criminal Appeal — Arising from Conviction and Sentencing by Trial Court and High Court

Relief Sought:
Appellant Sought Modification of Sentence — Challenged Enhanced Punishment — Questioned Conviction Under Both IPC and POCSO Act

Reason for Filing the Case:
Allegation of Sexual Assault on Minor Victim — Conviction and Sentencing by Trial Court — Affirmed by High Court with Enhanced Sentence — Appeal Against Enhanced Sentence

Decisions Until Now:
Trial Court — Convicted and Sentenced to Life Imprisonment and Fine
High Court — Affirmed Conviction — Enhanced Sentence to Life Imprisonment for Natural Life Term

Issues:
a. Whether Conviction Should be Under IPC or POCSO Act Considering Overlapping Provisions
b. Whether High Court was Justified in Enhancing Sentence Without Appeal for Enhancement
c. Whether Sentence of Life Imprisonment for Natural Life Term Was Warranted

Submissions/Arguments:
Appellant:

• Trial Court Should Not Have Convicted Under Both IPC and POCSO Act

• Special Law (POCSO Act) Should Override General Law (IPC)

• Enhanced Sentence by High Court Without Appeal for Enhancement Was Illegal

Respondent:

• Conviction Justified for Heinous Offence

• High Court Rightly Awarded Enhanced Sentence Considering the Nature of Crime