/2023 INSC 0603/
2023INSC603REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1633 OF 2023
State of U.P.       … Appellant
versus
Sonu Kushwaha   … Respondent
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECTS
1. The only question involved in this appeal is whether the
respondent   is   guilty   of   an   offence   of   aggravated   penetrative
sexual assault punishable under Section 6 of the Protection of
Children   from   Sexual   Offences   Act,   2012   (for   short,   ‘the
POCSO Act’).
2. The   respondent–accused   was   prosecuted   for   the
offences punishable under Sections 377 and 506 of the Indian
Penal   Code,   1860   (for   short,   ‘IPC’)   and   Section   5   read   with
Section   6   of   the   POCSO   Act.     The   learned   8 th
  Additional
Sessions Judge, Jhansi who was the Special Judge under the
Criminal Appeal No.1633 of 2023
            Page  1  of  9

POCSO   Act   convicted   the   respondent   for   all   three   offences.
The   respondent   was   sentenced   to   undergo   rigorous
imprisonment   for   ten   years   for   the   offence   punishable   under
Section 6 of the POCSO Act and was directed to pay a fine of
Rs.5,000/­.   The   respondent   was   sentenced   to   undergo
rigorous   imprisonment   for   seven   years   for   the   offence
punishable   under   Section   377   of   IPC.     For   the   offence
punishable   under   Section   506   of   IPC,   he   was   sentenced   to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.  For the last two
offences, a fine was also imposed.
3. The   respondent   preferred   Criminal   Appeal   No.5415   of
2018   before   the   High   Court   of   Judicature   at   Allahabad.     By
the   impugned   judgment,   the   High   Court   held   that   the
respondent   was   guilty   of   the   offence   of   penetrative   sexual
assault punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and not
the   offence   of   aggravated   penetrative   sexual   assault
punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.  Therefore, his
substantive   sentence   for   the   offence   punishable   under   the
POCSO   Act   was   brought   down   to   imprisonment   for   seven
years   with   a   fine   of   Rs.5,000/­.     Only   to   this   extent,   the
appeal was allowed.  
4. It   is   not   disputed   that   the   age   of   the   victim   was   less
than twelve years at the time of the commission of the offence.
The   facts   of   the   case   have   been   summarised   by   the   High
Court in paragraph 3 of the impugned judgment, which reads
thus:
Criminal Appeal No.1633 of 2023
            Page  2  of  9

“ 3.   Tersely   put,   the   case   of   the
prosecution   is   that   the   complainant   XYZ
lodged   an   F.I.R.   against   the   appellant
Sonu   Kushwaha   on   26.03.2016   at
Chirgaon,   District   Jhansi   stating   therein
that on 22.03.2016, at about 05:00 hours
in the evening, appellant Sonu Kushwaha
came to complainant's house and took his
son   aged   about  10  years   in   the   temple   at
Hardaul.   There   appellant   gave   Rs.20   to
complainant's   son   i.e.   victim   and   said   to
suck his penis. Appellant Sonu Kushwaha
put his penis into the mouth of the victim.
Thereafter,   victim   came   to   the   house
having   that   Rs.20.   At   this,   complainant's
nephew Santosh asked to victim that from
where   he   got   Rs.20,   then   victim   told   the
entire   happening   occurred   with   him.
Appellant also threatened the victim not to
disclose about the incident to anybody.”
In paragraph 16, the High Court has recorded findings based
on   the   evidence   adduced   by   the   prosecution.     The   relevant
portion of paragraph 16 reads thus:  
“ 16.   The proved facts of the case are that
the  appellant put  his  penis  into  mouth   of
the   victim   aged   about   10   years   and
discharged semen therein. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
.. .. .. .. .. .. ..”
This finding has not been assailed by the respondent­accused
as   he   did   not   challenge   the   order   of   the   High   Court.     After
recording the said finding, the High Court concluded that the
act   committed   by   the   respondent   was   of   penetrative   sexual
Criminal Appeal No.1633 of 2023
            Page  3  of  9

assault which was punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO
Act.  
SUBMISSIONS
5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant–State of
Uttar   Pradesh   has   invited   our   attention   to   the   definition   of
‘penetrative   sexual   assault’   under   clause   (a)   of   Section   3   of
the   POCSO   Act.     The   learned   counsel   also   pointed   out   that
under   clause   (m)   of   Section   5,   whoever   commits   penetrative
sexual   assault   on   a   child   below   twelve   years,   is   guilty   of
committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault.   He would,
therefore, submit that the High Court has committed an error
by   holding   that   Section   6,   which   applies   to   aggravated
penetrative sexual assault, was not applicable.
6. The   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   respondent–
accused   submitted   that   the   respondent   has   already
undergone   the   sentence   of   seven   years   as   modified   by   the
High   Court.     He   submitted   that   now   the   respondent   is
completely reformed.   He also stated that the respondent has
moved  ahead  in life and  in  fact, recently  he got married.   He
would, therefore, submit that it would be unjust at this stage
to apply Section 6 of the POCSO Act and send the respondent
to jail to undergo further sentence.
OUR VIEW
7. There is no dispute about the correctness of the finding
recorded   in   paragraph   16   of   the   impugned   judgment   of   the
Criminal Appeal No.1633 of 2023
            Page  4  of  9

High Court, which we have quoted above.  In this context, it is
necessary to note the definition of ‘penetrative sexual assault’
incorporated   in   Section   3   of   the   POCSO   Act.     Clause   (a)   of
Section 3 reads thus:
“3.   Penetrative   Sexual   Assault.­   A
person   is   said   to   commit   “penetrative
sexual assault” if – 
(a) he penetrates his penis, to any extent,
into   the   vagina,   mouth,   urethra   or
anus   of   a   child   or   makes   the   child   to
do so with him or any other person; or
(b) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
(c) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
(d) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..”
8. Section 2(a) of the POCSO Act provides that ‘aggravated
penetrative sexual assault’ has the same meaning as assigned
to   it   in   Section   5.     Therefore,   we   come   to   Section   5,   which
defines ‘aggravated penetrative sexual assault’.   Clause (m) of
Section 5 reads thus:
“5.Aggravated   Penetrative   Sexual
Assault. –
(a) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
(b) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
(c) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
(d) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
(e) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
(f) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
(g) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
(h) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
(i) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
(j) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
(k) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
(l) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
Criminal Appeal No.1633 of 2023
            Page  5  of  9

(m) whoever  commits  penetrative  sexual
assault  on   a   child   below
twelve years; or
(n) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
(o) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
(p) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
(q) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
(r) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
(s) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
(t) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
(u) ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..   ..,   is   said   to
commit   aggravated   penetrative   sexual
assault”
9. Considering the finding recorded in paragraph 16 of the
impugned   judgment,   obviously   in   this   case,   the   respondent
has   committed   an   offence   of   aggravated   penetrative   sexual
assault as he has  committed  penetrative  sexual  assault on  a
child below twelve years.   Clause (m) of Section 5 is attracted
in this case.  
10.   Section 6, as applicable before its substitution on 16th
August 2019, read thus:
“ 6.   Punishment   for   aggravated
penetrative   sexual   assault.— Whoever,
commits   aggravated   penetrative   sexual
assault,   shall   be   punished   with   rigorous
imprisonment for a term which shall not
be   less   than   ten   years   but   which   may
extend to imprisonment for life and shall
also be liable to fine.”
On   the   date   of   the   commission   of   the   offence,   rigorous
imprisonment   for   ten   years   was   the   minimum   sentence
prescribed   for   the   offence   of   aggravated   penetrative   sexual
Criminal Appeal No.1633 of 2023
            Page  6  of  9

assault.   From 16 th
  August 2019, the minimum sentence has
been   enhanced   to   twenty   years.     However,   the   amended
provision will not apply to this case as the incident has taken
place prior to 16 th
 August 2019.
11.   Surprisingly, the High Court has observed that Section
5   was   not   applicable,   and   the   offence   committed   by   the
respondent   falls   under   the   category   of   a   lesser   offence   of
penetrative sexual assault, which is punishable under Section
4   of   the   POCSO   Act.     Thus,   the   High   Court   committed   an
obvious   error   by   holding   that   the   act   committed   by   the
respondent was not an aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
In   fact,   the   Special   Court   was   right   in   punishing   the
respondent   under   Section   6   and   sentencing   him   to   undergo
rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs.5,000/­.
12. The   POCSO   Act   was   enacted   to   provide   more   stringent
punishments   for   the  offences   of  child   abuse   of   various  kinds
and that is why minimum punishments have been prescribed
in   Sections   4,   6,   8   and   10   of   the   POCSO   Act   for   various
categories   of   sexual   assaults   on   children.     Hence,   Section   6,
on   its   plain   language,   leaves   no   discretion   to   the   Court   and
there   is   no   option   but   to   impose   the   minimum   sentence   as
done   by   the   Trial   Court.     When   a   penal   provision   uses   the
phraseology “shall not be less than….”, the Courts cannot do
offence   to   the   Section   and   impose   a   lesser   sentence.     The
Courts   are   powerless   to   do   that   unless   there   is   a   specific
statutory   provision   enabling   the   Court   to   impose   a   lesser
Criminal Appeal No.1633 of 2023
            Page  7  of  9

sentence.   However, we find no such provision in the POCSO
Act.   Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the respondent
may   have   moved   ahead   in   life   after   undergoing   the   sentence
as   modified   by   the   High   Court,   there   is   no   question   of
showing any leniency to him. Apart from the fact that the law
provides for a minimum sentence, the crime committed by the
respondent   is   very   gruesome   which   calls   for   very   stringent
punishment.  The impact of the obnoxious act on the mind of
the   victim­child   will   be   life­long.     The   impact   is   bound   to
adversely affect the healthy growth of the victim.   There is no
dispute  that the age  of  the victim  was  less  than  twelve years
at the time of the incident.   Therefore, we have no option but
to   set   aside   the   impugned   judgment   of   the   High   Court   and
restore the judgment of the Trial Court.  
13. Accordingly,   the   appeal   is   allowed.     The   impugned
judgment and order dated 18 th
  November 2021 passed by the
High   Court   of   Judicature   at   Allahabad   in   Criminal   Appeal
No.5415  of  2018  is  quashed and  set aside  and  the judgment
and   order   dated   24 th
  August   2018   passed   by   the   learned   8 th
Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge POCSO Act, Jhansi
in   Special   Session   Trial   No.134   of   2016   is   restored.
Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No.5415 of 2018 filed before the
High Court stands dismissed.   The respondent shall undergo
rigorous   imprisonment   for   ten   years   for   the   offence
punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and shall pay a
fine   of   Rs.5,000/­.     We   direct   the   respondent   to   surrender
before   the   learned   Special   Judge   under   the   POCSO   Act,
Criminal Appeal No.1633 of 2023
            Page  8  of  9

Jhansi   within   a   maximum   period   of   one   month.   On   his
surrender,   the   Special   Court   shall   send   the   respondent   to
prison   for   undergoing   the   remaining   sentence   for   the   offence
punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.   On failure of
the   respondent   to   surrender   within   one   month   from   today,
the Special Court shall forthwith issue a non­bailable warrant
against   the   respondent   and   ensure   that   the   respondent   is
committed   to   prison   for   undergoing   the   remaining   sentence
for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
A copy of this judgment shall be immediately forwarded to the
Special Court. 
…………………….J.
      (Abhay S. Oka)
…………………….J.
            (Rajesh Bindal)
New Delhi;
July 5, 2023.
Criminal Appeal No.1633 of 2023
            Page  9  of  9