Courts Bound by Statutory Minimum Sentences under the POCSO Act: Bombay High Court Clarifies the Law

The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) represents one of the most stringent legislative frameworks in Indian criminal law, enacted to combat sexual offences against children through special courts, strict procedural safeguards, reverse burden presumptions, and mandatory minimum punishments. Despite this legislative clarity, sentencing errors at the trial stage, particularly failure to impose statutory minimum sentences, have occasionally surfaced.

In a significant judgment delivered on 6 February 2026, the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) decisively addressed this issue in Santosh Maroti Bhandare v. State of Maharashtra & Anr. The Court held that imposition of the statutory minimum sentence under the POCSO Act is mandatory, and that correcting a sentence that falls below the statutory minimum does not amount to enhancement of sentence under Section 386 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) (Section 427 BNSS).

This ruling assumes considerable importance for criminal jurisprudence, victim rights, appellate powers, and the correct application of mandatory sentencing statutes.

Factual Background of the Case

The prosecution alleged that the accused abducted a 14-year-old girl, took her across multiple cities, and committed repeated penetrative sexual assault under the pretext of marriage. The offences were registered under:

• Section 376(2)(n), Indian Penal Code (IPC) [Section 64(2)(m) BNS] – repeated rape, and
• Section 5(l) read with Section 6, POCSO Act – aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a child.

The trial court convicted the accused but awarded only seven years’ rigorous imprisonment, despite the statutory framework mandating:

• Minimum 10 years under Section 376(2)(n) IPC [Section 64(2)(m) BNS], and
  
• Minimum 20 years under Section 6 POCSO Act (post-2019 amendment).

Two appeals followed:

1. The accused challenged the conviction.
2. The victim challenged the failure to impose statutory minimum punishment.

Issues Before the Court

The Bombay High Court framed two pivotal questions:

1. Whether the conviction recorded by the trial court was legally sustainable, and
2. Whether the appellate court can impose statutory minimum punishment when the trial court has failed to do so, without it amounting to
   “enhancement of sentence” under Section 386 CrPC.

While the first issue involved the appreciation of evidence, the second issue raised a question of sentencing jurisprudence with far-reaching consequences.

Statutory Framework: Mandatory Minimum Sentences under POCSO

Section 6, POCSO Act (Post-2019 Amendment)

Section 6 prescribes that aggravated penetrative sexual assault shall be punished with:

• Rigorous imprisonment not less than 20 years, extendable to life imprisonment, or
• Death penalty, along with fine.

The use of negative phraseology (“shall not be less than”) removes all sentencing discretion below the prescribed minimum.

Section 376(2)(n), IPC (Section 64(2)(m) BNS)

For repeated rape, the IPC similarly mandates:

• Imprisonment not less than 10 years, extendable to life imprisonment.

Section 42, POCSO Act – Greater Punishment Rule

Where an act constitutes offences under both IPC and POCSO, the punishment greater in degree must be imposed.

Trial Court’s Error: Illegality in Sentencing

The High Court found that the trial court committed a clear illegality by awarding a sentence below the statutory floor. The Court observed that:

• Judicial discretion operates only within legislative boundaries.
• When the legislature fixes a minimum sentence, courts cannot dilute it on equitable or sympathetic considerations.
• A sentence below the statutory minimum is contrary to the law and unsustainable.

Interpretation of Section 386 CrPC (Section 427 BNSS)

Section 386 permits appellate courts to:

• Alter the nature or extent of the sentence,
• But not enhance the same.

The Court clarified that:

• “Enhancement” refers to judicial escalation beyond the lawful minimum.
• Correcting a sentence that violates statutory mandate is not enhancement, but compliance with law.

Thus, the appellate court was duty-bound to intervene.

Presumptions under Sections 29 and 30, POCSO Act

The Court also emphasised that:

• Once foundational facts are proved, presumptions of guilt and culpable mental state automatically operate.
• The accused failed to rebut these presumptions.

This reinforced the gravity of the offence and justified strict adherence to statutory sentencing.

Supreme Court Precedents Affirming Mandatory Minimum

The Bombay High Court relied upon binding precedent to underline that minimum sentences are inviolable, including:

1. Mohd. Hashim v. State of U.P. & Ors. (2017) – Probation or leniency impermissible where statute fixes minimum punishment.
2. Madhya Pradesh v. Vikram Das (2019) – Even Article 142 cannot be used to dilute minimum sentences.
3. State through S.P., New Delhi, v. Ratan Lal Arora (2004) – Courts cannot invoke equitable considerations to go below statutory minimums.
   

The High Court noted that even constitutional powers cannot override legislative command, making the trial court’s sentence indefensible.

Application of Section 42 and 42A POCSO Act

The Court applied:

• Section 42 – Higher punishment prevails when IPC and POCSO overlap.
• Section 42A – POCSO has overriding effect in case of inconsistency.

Consequently, the accused was directed to undergo 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment, being the higher statutory punishment.

Final Holding of the Court

The Bombay High Court held that:

• Conviction was legally sound, based on credible evidence.
• Trial court erred in awarding a sentence below statutory minimum.
• Appellate court has power under Section 386 CrPC to impose minimum statutory sentence.
• Such imposition does not amount to enhancement of sentence.
• The accused must undergo 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 6 POCSO Act.

Conclusion

The Bombay High Court’s ruling firmly settles the legal position that courts have no discretion to award a sentence below the statutory minimum prescribed under the POCSO Act. Once the legislature has consciously fixed a minimum punishment for aggravated sexual offences against children, any deviation by the trial court amounts to an error of law rather than an exercise of discretion. The appellate court, in such circumstances, is not enhancing the sentence but merely correcting an illegality.

By drawing a clear distinction between enhancement of sentence and imposition of mandatory minimum punishment, the Court has reinforced the principle that sentencing discretion must operate strictly within legislative limits.

More importantly, the decision reaffirms the child-centric object of the POCSO Act. This ruling thus serves as a strong reminder that in cases involving sexual offences against children, judicial compassion cannot override legislative command. Where Parliament has spoken in unequivocal terms, courts are bound to give effect to the law in both letter and spirit.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams