State Of Nct Of Delhi vs Deepak

$~44
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of order: 20.05.2026
+ CRL.A. 236/2021 & CRL.M.A. 15584/2026
STATE OF NCT OF DELHI .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Aman Usman, APP with
Mr. Manvendra Yadav, Mr.
Atiq Ur Rehman, Advocates
along with SI Sandeep Bishnoi,
PS Mayapuri
versus
DEEPAK .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Dinesh Malik, Mr. Puneet
Jain, Mr. Lavish Arora,
Advocates with respondent in
person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J. (ORAL)
th
1. Vide our judgment dated 04 May, 2026, the present appeal
th
was allowed and the impugned judgment dated 18 December, 2019,
passed by the learned Trial Court, has been set aside and respondent
Deepak has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section
363/366/342 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 [ “IPC” ] and Section 6 of
the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 [ “POCSO
Act” ].
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the respondent/convict
and the learned Additional PP on the point of quantum of sentence as
Signature Not Verified
Crl. A. 236/2021 Page 1 of 8
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:20.05.2026
16:21

also on an application under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act,
1958, seeking release on probation of good conduct.
3. The learned counsel for respondent/convict submits that the age
of the convict was 21 years at the time of commission of offence. It is
further submitted that the convict is the sole bread-earner of his
family, and his incarceration at this stage, would not only adversely
affect his future prospects but would also cause immense economic
hardship to his 72-year old mother, who is suffering from age-related
ailments. It is further submitted that the convict is presently working
as a daily wage worker at a flex shop and earns approximately Rs.
8,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- per month.
4. The learned counsel further submits that the incident pertains to
the year 2014 and that victim as also the convict are now settled in
their respective lives. It is also submitted that respondent/convict is a
first time offender, with no prior criminal antecedents. Request has
therefore been made for taking a lenient view and for release of the
convict on probation of good conduct. In support, he places reliance
on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Sunita Devi v. The State of
Bihar , 2024 INSC 448.
5. Per contra , the learned APP for the State submits that since
Section 6 of POCSO Act provides for a minimum sentence of 10 years
imprisonment, the benefit under Probation of Offenders Act cannot be
given, and in support of his submission, he places reliance on the
judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of State of
Karnataka v. Prathap & Anr. CRL. APPEAL 1335/2017. The learned
th
APP further submits that the POCSO Act came into force w.e.f. 14
Signature Not Verified
Crl. A. 236/2021 Page 2 of 8
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:20.05.2026
16:21

November, 2012, that is, subsequent to the coming into force of the
Probation of Offender Act, and therefore, Probation of Offenders Act
is not applicable in the present case.
6. He further submits that even Section 6 of the Probation of
Offenders Act would not apply in the present case, as on the date of
punishment, the age of the respondent admittedly is more than 21
years.
7. The learned APP further submits that Section 6 of the POCSO
Act provides for punishment with imprisonment upto life, and
therefore, this is not a fit case for grant of probation and respondent
does not deserve any leniency.
8. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the parties.
9. Section 6 of the POCSO Act, as applicable at the relevant time,
provided punishment of Rigorous Imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than 10 years, but which may extend to imprisonment
for life and shall also be liable to fine.
10. The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, empowers the Courts to
release an offender after admonition in respect of certain specified
offences. It also empowers the Courts to release on probation, in all
suitable cases, an offender found guilty of having committed an
offence not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. In respect
of the offenders under 21 years of age, special provision has been
made putting restriction on their imprisonment. However, before
granting benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, it must be shown that
the convict, even though, less than 21 years of age, was not guilty of
Signature Not Verified
Crl. A. 236/2021 Page 3 of 8
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:20.05.2026
16:21

an offence punishable with imprisonment for life. This has been made
clear by the Supreme Court in the case of Jugal Kishore Prasad Vs.
State of Bihar, (1972) 2 SCC 633. The relevant para reads as under:-
“7. Mr Misra on behalf of the appellant
has urged that as the offence under Section
326 read with Section 149, Penal Code, 1860
is punishable not only with imprisonment for
life but also with imprisonment which may
extend up to ten years, the benefit of Section 6
of the Act can be invoked by the appellant.
This contention, in our opinion, is not well
founded. Plain reading of Section 6 makes it
manifest that it deals with persons under
twenty-one years of age who are found guilty
of having committed an offence punishable
with imprisonment but not with imprisonment
for life. As imprisonment for life can also be
awarded for the offence under Section 326
read with Section 149, Penal Code, 1860, a
person found guilty of such an offence would
not be entitled to claim the benefit of Section 6.
To hold otherwise, would have the effect of
ignoring the words “but not with
imprisonment for life” and treating them to be
otiose. Such a construction is plainly not
permissible. We also cannot subscribe to the
view that the offences excluded from the
purview of the section are only those offences
wherein punishment prescribed is
imprisonment for life and not for a lesser term,
for the language used in the section does not
warrant such a view. On the contrary, the
plain meaning of the section is that the section
cannot be invoked by a person who is
convicted for an offence punishable with
imprisonment for life. The fact that
imprisonment for a lesser term can also be
awarded for the offence would not take it out
of the category of offences punishable with
imprisonment for life. The policy underlying
the Act appears to be that it is only in cases of
not very serious nature viz. offences not
Signature Not Verified
Crl. A. 236/2021 Page 4 of 8
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:20.05.2026
16:21

punishable with imprisonment for life that the
convicted person should have the benefit of
provisions of the Act. Where, however, the
offence for which a person has been convicted
is of a serious nature punishable with
imprisonment for life, the benefit of the Act
would not be permissible in his case. Likewise,
there are certain offences like those under the
Prevention of Corruption Act wherein the
convicted person cannot claim the protection
of the Act. Section 18 of the Act expressly
excludes such offences from the purview of the
Act.”
11. Even otherwise, Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act
applies to the accused, who is under 21 years of age on the date of
imposition of punishment and not on the date of commission of
offence. If on the date of order of conviction and sentence, the accused
is below 21 years of age, only then, the provisions of Section 6 of the
Act shall apply. In taking this view, we are supported by the judgment
of the Supreme Court in the case of Sudesh Kumar v. State of
Uttrakhand (2008) 3 SCC 111.
th
12. Admittedly, on the date of conviction, that is, 04 May, 2026,
the age of the respondent was more than 21 years, and therefore,
respondent is not entitled to the benefit of Section 6 of the Probation
of Offenders Act.
13. In the case of State State of Karnataka v. Prathap & Anr.
(supra), the High Court of Karnataka held that the provisions of
Probation of Offenders Act do not have any application in the case
under POCSO Act. The relevant paras of the judgment read as under:-
Signature Not Verified
Crl. A. 236/2021 Page 5 of 8
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:20.05.2026
16:21

“Prevention of Children from Sexual
Offences Act, 2012 is a special enactment
which came into force w.e.f. 20.06.2012. This
enactment is subsequent to coming into force
of the Probation of Offenders Act. In the case
on hand the accused is liable to be punished
according to section 8 of POCSO Act which
prescribes a minimum sentence of 3 years
imprisonment in addition to fine.
Therefore, the minimum punishment has
to be imposed. The provisions of the Probation
of Offenders Act do not have application.”
14. The POCSO Act was enacted to provide for protection of
children from the offences of sexual assault, sexual harassment and
pornography. Section 6 of the POCSO Act at the relevant time
provided minimum punishment for 10 years, which may extend to
imprisonment for life with fine. Keeping in mind the objective behind
the enactment as also the punishment, we are of the view that
respondent is not entitled for grant of probation under Section 4 and 6
of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. CRl. M.A. 15584/2026 is
therefore dismissed .
15. As per the Nominal Roll dated 06.05.2026, the respondent has
already remained in custody for about 05 years and 07 months during
the investigation/trial of the case. The Nominal Roll does not indicate
any previous criminal antecedents of the respondent. The incident
took place in the year 2014. Taking into account all the facts and
circumstances, in particular, the mitigating circumstances pointed out
by the learned counsel of the respondent, we are of the view that
interest of justice would be met if the minimum sentence is imposed
Signature Not Verified
Crl. A. 236/2021 Page 6 of 8
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:20.05.2026
16:21

on the Respondent/convict. The respondent/convict is accordingly
sentenced as under:-
i) Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.
10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo
Simple Imprisonment for a period of 03 months under
Section 6 of the POCSO Act;
ii) Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 07 years with
fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall
undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 03 months
under Section 366 IPC;
iii) Rigorous Imprisonment of a period of 03 years with
a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he shall
undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 01 month
under Section 363 IPC;
iv) Rigorous Imprisonment of 3 months under Section
342 IPC.
16. All sentences shall run concurrently and
respondent/convict shall get benefit of Section 428 Cr. PC for the
period during which he remained in custody during
investigation/trial.
Compensation:
17. Under Section 33(8) of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 396
BNSS (Section 357 in Cr. PC), it is the duty of the Court to ensure
that the victim receives adequate compensation for the physical and
mental trauma caused to her and for her rehabilitation. As per the
Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual
Signature Not Verified
Crl. A. 236/2021 Page 7 of 8
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:20.05.2026
16:21

Assault/Other Crimes, 2018, the maximum amount of compensation
to be granted to the victim of rape is Rs. 07 lakhs. However, in case
the victim is less than 18 years, then the compensation may be
increased by 50% more than the specified amount.
18. Even though, the emotional harm cannot be quantified in terms
of money, however, having considered the gravity of the offence, the
age of the victim and the severity of emotional harm suffered by her,
the child victim “S” is granted compensation of Rs. 10.50 lakhs (Rs.
07 lakhs + 50% of Rs. 07 lakhs) for the offence of aggravated
penetrative sexual assault/rape committed upon her. The amount, if
any already disbursed, be set off from the final compensation amount.
19. Let, a copy of this order be sent to the Member, Secretary,
DSLSA for information and compliance.
20. Respondent/convict be taken into custody and be sent to prison
to serve the remaining sentence.
th
21. Copy of this order as also the judgment dated 04 May, 2026 be
supplied to the respondent/convict, victim and the learned APP free of
cost.
22. Deputy Registrar is directed to prepare the custody warrant &
commit the convict to prison.
23. The Appeal accordingly stands disposed of.
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
MAY 20, 2026/na/rm
Signature Not Verified
Crl. A. 236/2021 Page 8 of 8
Signed By:VAISHALI
PRUTHI
Signing Date:20.05.2026
16:21