SATAURAM MANDAVIversusTHE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ANR.

                 [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 outside the house. When his wife
           was later unable to locate their daughter, she went to the
           appellant’s house and questioned him about her whereabouts.
           Upon being confronted, the appellant fled.
      3.2. The FIR was registered against the appellant alleging that he had
           lured the prosecutrix to his house and committed rape upon her.
      3.3. The Trial Court framed charges against the appellant under
           Section 376AB IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
      3.4. Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence
           adduced, the Trial Court recorded a categorical finding that the
           appellant had lured the minor prosecutrix into his house and
           forcibly committed rape on her. The appellant was accordingly
           convicted and sentenced under Section 6 of the POCSO Act


1    IPC.
2    POCSO.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                                1541

         Satauram Mandavi v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.


           to life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life, along
           with a fine.
     3.5. The High Court, in the impugned judgment, affirmed the
          conviction and sentence. It recorded that no leniency could be
          shown in light of the fact that the victim was a five year old child
          and the crime committed was of a grave and heinous nature.
     3.6. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant
          has approached this Court.
4.   We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5.   By order dated 30.09.2024, notice was issued limited to the question
     of sentence.
6.   The submission advanced on behalf of the appellant is that the incident
     occurred on 20.05.2019. While the conviction is under Section 6 of
     the POCSO Act, the Protection Of Children From Sexual Offences
     (Amendment) Act, 2019, which came into force on 16.08.2019,
     enhanced the minimum sentence to 20 years and redefined
     “imprisonment for life” to mean imprisonment for the remainder of
     the natural life. It is the appellant’s contention that the sentencing
     court erred in applying the amended provisions retrospectively, as
     the incident in question took place prior to the amendment.
7.   The State, opposing any modification in sentence, contends that the
     appellant does not deserve any leniency considering the nature and
     gravity of the offence committed.
8.   Section 6 of the POCSO Act, prior to the 2019 amendment, read
     as under:
           “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.”
9.   This Court, having found no merit in the challenge to conviction,
     had confined its notice to the question of sentencing. However, we
     find merit in the appellant’s submission that since the offence was
     committed on 20.05.2019, the amended provision of Section 6 of
     the POCSO Act, which came into force on 16.08.2019, could not
     have been applied to his case.
1542                                                            [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


10. In this regard, Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India is relevant
    and reads as under:
             “20. Protection in respect of conviction for offences –
             (1)   No person shall be convicted of any offence except for
                   violation of a law in force at the time of the commission
                   of the act charged as an offence, nor be subjected
                   to a penalty greater than that which might have been
                   inflicted under the law in force at the time of the
                   commission of the offence.”
11. The Constitutional bar against retrospective imposition of a harsher
    penalty under Article 20(1) is clear and absolute. The Trial Court, in
    applying the enhanced sentence introduced by the 2019 Amendment
    to Section 6 of the POCSO Act, has 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 Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India.
12. The sentence of “imprisonment for life, meaning remainder of natural
    life,” as per the amended provision, did not exist in the statutory
    framework on 20.05.2019, the date of the incident. Under the
    unamended Section 6, the maximum punishment permissible was
    imprisonment for life in its conventional sense and not imprisonment
    till the remainder of natural life.
13. Accordingly, while we uphold the conviction of the appellant under
    Section 6 of the POCSO Act, we modify the sentence to that of
    rigorous imprisonment for life, as understood under the unamended
    statute, and set aside the sentence of imprisonment for the remainder
    of the natural life. The fine of ₹10,000/- is maintained.
14. Appeal is partly allowed as per the findings above.
15. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeal partly allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain