01Facts
The High Court set aside the acquittal and convicted Deepak for offences under Sections 363, 366, and 342 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
¶ 1The respondent filed an application under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, seeking release on probation of good conduct, citing his age (21 at the time of the 2014 offence), his status as a sole bread-earner for his elderly mother, and his lack of prior criminal antecedents.
¶ 3-4At the time of the sentencing hearing in 2026, the respondent was over 21 years old.
¶ 1202Issues
i.1. Whether a convict sentenced under Section 6 of the POCSO Act is eligible for the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958
pp. 2-3 / para 5, 13ii.2. Whether the age of the convict for the purpose of Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act is determined by the date of the offence or the date of the imposition of punishment
pp. 5 / para 11-1203Law Applied
Section 6 of the POCSO Act, which prescribes a minimum mandatory sentence of 10 years.
¶ 9Probation cannot be granted for offences punishable with life imprisonment.
Jugal Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar (1972) / para 10The age of the accused for seeking probation benefit must be assessed on the date of the sentencing order, not the date of the offence.
Sudesh Kumar v. State of Uttrakhand (2008) / para 11Special enactments like POCSO, which provide minimum mandatory sentences and were enacted after the Probation of Offenders Act, override the latter.
State of Karnataka v. Prathap (2017) / para 13Provisions in the judgment · 14 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 149Section 326Section 342Section 363Section 366
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Section 6Section 8Section 33
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 Section 4Section 6Section 18
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 357Section 428
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 396
04Reasoning
The Court reasoned that Section 6 of the POCSO Act is a serious offence punishable with up to life imprisonment; since the Probation of Offenders Act expressly excludes cases punishable by life imprisonment, the respondent is ineligible for probation.
¶ 10, 14On the question of age, the Court noted that while the respondent was 21 at the time of the incident in 2014, he was well over 21 on the date of conviction in 2026, thereby disqualifying him from the special protections afforded to youthful offenders under Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
¶ 11-12The Court emphasized that the POCSO Act is a specific, subsequent legislation designed to protect children, and its mandate for minimum sentencing precludes the leniency of probation.
¶ 13-1405Holding
The Court dismissed the application for probation, holding that the respondent is not entitled to the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act.
¶ 14The respondent was sentenced to 10 years of Rigorous Imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000 for the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, with shorter concurrent sentences for the IPC offences.
¶ 15The Court awarded ₹10.50 lakhs as compensation to the victim under the Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault, 2018, read with Section 33(8) of the POCSO Act.
¶ 17-18The respondent was ordered into immediate custody.
¶ 20Original Court PDF
State Of Nct Of DelhivsDeepak
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
