Case Name: Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh vs. State of U.P.

Case Number: (Arising out of SLP(Criminal) No(s). of 2025) (Diary No. 36334 of 2024)

Date: 2nd August 2019

Quorum: Justice Mehta, J.

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

 

The appellant, Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh, challenged the Allahabad High Court’s decision, which upheld his conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur, for offenses under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The appellant, the victim’s father, was accused of sexually assaulting his 9-year-old daughter. The Trial Court after hearing the said case had sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine. The High Court also affirmed the conviction but it also further modified the sentence to life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life. The victim’s mother (PW-1) lodged an FIR alleging that the appellant committed sexual assault on their daughter (PW-2) on October 22, 2015. The victim narrated the incident to her grandfather (PW-3), who informed the mother. The Medical examination of the victim (PW-4) revealed redness in her vaginal area, but her hymen was intact. The appellant was arrested, and a charge sheet was filed. The Trial Court framed charges, and after examining nine witnesses and eight documents, convicted the appellant. The appellant claimed he was falsely implicated due to a prior FIR he had filed against his wife and father-in-law.

ISSUES

 

1. The primary issues before the Supreme Court were:
2. Whether the appellant could be convicted under both the IPC and the POCSO Act for the same offense.
3. Whether the High Court was justified in enhancing the sentence without an appeal for enhancement filed by the State.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

 

1. Sections 376(2)(f) & 376(2)(i), IPC: Penalizes aggravated sexual assault, including custodial rape and assault on minors.
2. Sections 3/4, POCSO Act, 2012: Criminalizes penetrative sexual assault on children under 18.
3. Section 42A, POCSO Act: Grants overriding effect over inconsistent provisions in other laws.

 

ARGUMENTS

 

Petitioner’s Arguments:

 

1. Conviction under both IPC and POCSO Act violates the principle against double jeopardy, as Section 42A of the POCSO Act overrides the IPC in cases of inconsistency.
2. The High Court improperly enhanced the sentence without a formal appeal by the State, violating procedural fairness.

Respondent’s Arguments:

 

1. The offenses under IPC and POCSO Act are distinct, allowing concurrent convictions.
2. The High Court acted within its jurisdiction under Section 386(b) CrPC to enhance sentences in the interest of justice.

 

ANALYSIS

 

The judgment review focuses primarily on the argument regarding the dual convictions under the IPC and POCSO Act, and the enhancement of sentence by the High Court. The appellant’s counsel’s reliance on Section 42A of the POCSO Act is a key point, as it addresses the overriding effect of the POCSO Act over other laws in cases of inconsistency. The High Court’s decision to increase the rigor of the punishment without a specific appeal for enhancement raises concerns about procedural fairness and the scope of appellate jurisdiction.

 

JUDGEMENT

 

1. The Supreme Court has yet to rule on the dual convictions. However, precedents like Pradeep v. State of Haryana (2023) suggest that overlapping sections may be read harmoniously, with sentences running concurrently.
2. The Court may set aside the “natural life imprisonment” enhancement due to procedural lapses, restoring the Trial Court’s sentence of life imprisonment.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The Supreme Court will need to consider the interplay between the IPC and POCSO Act, particularly in light of Section 42A of the POCSO Act. Additionally, the Court must address the propriety of the High Court’s enhancement of the sentence in the absence of a specific appeal for such enhancement.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer

lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

 

WRITTEN BY POOJA PARAMESWARAN