LexSATAURAM MANDAVI versus THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 7 S.C.R. 1538 : 2025 INSC 892 Satauram Mandavi v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. (Criminal Appeal No. 3179 of 2025) 25 July 2025 [Vikram Nath* and Sandeep Mehta JJ.] Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the retrospective application of the amended provision-s.6 POCSO Act, to the incident which took place prior to the amendment. Headnotes† Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – s.6 (as amended) – Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault – Retrospective application of the amended provision-s.6, to the incident took place prior to the amendment – Propriety – Commission of offence by the appellant on 20.05.2019 – Amended provision of s.6 POCSO Act, came into force on 16.08.2019 whereby the minimum sentence enhanced to 20 years and redefined “imprisonment for life” to mean imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life – Courts below convicted the appellant u/s.376AB IPC and s.6 POCSO Act and sentenced him to imprisonment for remainder of his natural life, along with a fine – Correctness: Held: Constitutional bar against retrospective imposition of a harsher penalty u/Art.20(1) is clear and absolute – Since the offence was committed on 20.05.2019, the amended provision of s.6 POCSO Act, which came into force on 16.08.2019, could not have been applied to the instant case – Trial court, in applying the enhanced sentence introduced by the 2019 Amendment to s.6 POCSO Act, effectively subjected the appellant to a punishment greater than that which was permissible under the law in force at the time of commission of the offence which is clearly violative of the bar contained in Art.20(1) – Sentence of “imprisonment for life, * Author [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1539 Satauram Mandavi v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. meaning remainder of natural life,” as per the amended provision, did not exist on the date of the incident – Under the unamended s.6, the maximum punishment permissible was imprisonment for life in its conventional sense and not imprisonment till the remainder of natural life – Conviction of the appellant u/s.6 POCSO Act upheld, however, sentence is modified to that of rigorous imprisonment for life, as given under the unamended statute, and set aside the sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life – Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, 2019 – Constitution of India – Art.20(1) – Penal Code, 1860 – s.376AB. [Paras 9-13] List of Acts Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, 2019; Constitution of India; Penal Code, 1860. List of Keywords Retrospective application of the amended provision-s.6 POCSO Act; Life imprisonment for remainder of his natural life; Constitutional bar; Punishment greater than which was permissible under the law in force at the time of commission of the offence; Imprisonment for life; Rigorous imprisonment for life. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 3179 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 05.09.2023 of the High Court of Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur in CRLA No. 34 of 2022 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: D.N. Goburdhan, Sr. Adv., Ms. Shalu Sharma, Vishal Arun Mishra, Ms. Rupali Panwar, Surabh Sharma, Ayush Panwar. Advs. for the Respondents: Atul Jha, A.A.G., Abhishek Pandey, Prashant Kumar Umrao. 1540 [2025] 7 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Vikram Nath, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeal arises from the judgment dated 05.09.2023 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, whereby the appellant’s appeal challenging the judgment of conviction dated 30.11.2021 rendered by the Trial Court was dismissed. By the said judgment, the appellant was convicted under Section 376AB of the Indian Penal Code, 18601 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 20122 and sentenced to imprisonment for life, meaning imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life, along with a fine of ₹10,000/-. 3. The facts, in brief, are as follows: 3.1. On 26.06.2019, the father of the prosecutrix (PW-3) lodged FIR No. 37/2019 at Police Station Vishrampur, Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. He stated that on 20.05.2019, he, his wife, and mother had gone to attend a marriage ceremony in the village, leaving their two children at home. The prosecutrix, then aged about 5 years, was playing outsi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.