Sentencing discretion exercised within statutory limits is not liable for enhancement absent gross inadequacy or disproportion.

The State of Gujarat filed an appeal seeking enhancement of the sentence awarded to the respondent by the Special POCSO Court in Special Case No. 74 of 2015.

The respondent was convicted under Sections 363, 366, and 376 of the IPC, and Sections 4 and 11 of the POCSO Act, for enticing and committing sexual assault on a 16-year-old minor in 2015.

The Trial Court sentenced him to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment (RI) for the offenses under Section 376 IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act, along with lesser concurrent sentences for other charges.

The State contended that given the gravity of the crime and the victim's age, the punishment was inadequate and disproportionate.

1. Whether the sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court is grossly inadequate or disproportionate so as to warrant interference and enhancement under Section 418 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

The court applied Section 418 of the BNSS regarding the State’s power to appeal for enhancement.

Section 376 IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act both prescribed a minimum sentence of seven years RI at the relevant time.

The 2019 POCSO Amendment (increasing the minimum to 10 years) is prospective and inapplicable.

Sentencing discretion must balance proportionality, deterrence, and rehabilitation, as established in Soman v. State of Kerala (2013) and Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra (2012).

Per Bed Raj v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1955), appellate courts should not interfere with a lower court’s sentencing discretion unless the reasons are "very strong" or the punishment is not "substantial".

The court reasoned that although the victim was a minor (16 years), the sentencing must be governed by the statutory limits existing at the time of the offense in 2015.

At that time, the statutory minimum for both Section 376 IPC and Section 4 POCSO Act was seven years RI.

The Trial Court had already awarded this minimum mandatory sentence.

The High Court found that the Trial Judge had exercised judicial discretion after appreciating the evidence, including the statement of the victim and medical reports.

Applying the principles of proportionality, the court determined that the seven-year sentence was "just, adequate and proportionate" to the prevailing law and the facts of the case.

The State failed to demonstrate any exceptional or compelling circumstances to prove that the Trial Court's discretion was casual or improperly exercised.

The court answered the issue in the negative, affirming that when a Trial Court imposes a substantial punishment within the legal limits, the appellate court should be reluctant to interfere.

Consequently, the appeal for enhancement was dismissed, and the original judgment of the 4th Additional Sessions Judge (Special POCSO Court) was upheld.