SC upholds man's conviction in minor sexual assault, modifies sentence to life term
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta found merit in the submission that since the offence was committed in May 2019, the amended provision of Section 6 of the Protection of Children against Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) Act could not have been applied to his case.
Section 6 deals with punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
The bench noted the amended provision of Section 6 of the Act came into force on August 16, 2019.
Prior to the 2019 amendment, the court noted, Section 6 entailed a minimum punishment of 10 years and a maximum of life imprisonment along with the fine.
Referring to Article 20(1) of the Constitution, which deals with protection in respect of conviction for offences, the bench said, "The constitutional bar against retrospective imposition of a harsher penalty under Article 20(1) is clear and absolute."
The trial court was observed to have applied the enhanced sentence introduced by the 2019 amendment to Section 6, effectively subjecting the convict to a punishment greater than what was permissible under the law at the time of the offence.
"The sentence of 'imprisonment for life, meaning remainder of natural life', as per the amended provision, did not exist in the statutory framework on May 20, 2019, the date of the incident," the bench said.
Under the unamended Section 6, the maximum punishment permissible was life term in its conventional sense and not imprisonment till remainder of natural life.
"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," it said.
The ₹10,000 fine imposed on him was, however, upheld.
The top court's verdict came on the man's appeal against a September 2023 order of the Chhattisgarh High Court.
The high court rejected his plea against a trial court verdict, convicting and sentencing him to life imprisonment for remainder of his natural life with the fine.
The man was booked in 2019 on the complaint of the father of the minor survivor.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
36 minutes ago
- Time of India
Navi Mumbai shocker: Teacher held for sexual harassment of class 10 boy via video calls, text messages
Representative Image (AI) NAVI MUMBAI: A 35-year-old woman teacher of a private school was arrested Tuesday for sexual harassment of a Class 10 boy for a year by making video calls to him and stripping during the calls, besides sending sexual messages. It follows a case in Mumbai, where a woman teacher was arrested for having sex with a student for over a year. The crime came to light after the 15-year-old boy's mother noticed him looking at the phone through the night and checked his mobile only to find recordings of the teacher's video calls. An FIR was filed under the Pocso Act based on a complaint from the boy's mother Monday. A court remanded her in police custody till Wednesday. Police confiscated her phone to check her social media account. "It was found she had been indulging in similar obscene acts with 2 other students for a year. However, their parents are unwilling to lodge a complaint," a police officer said. The accused, who teaches classes 5-7, used to take extra classes for SSC students and allegedly got in touch with the boys on Instagram. (The victim's identity has not been revealed to protect his/her privacy as per Supreme court directives on cases related to sexual assault)
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
Sudden braking on highway is negligence, says SC
The Supreme Court ruled that a car driver can be held negligent for causing an accident by applying sudden brakes on a highway without warning. This verdict came after an engineering student lost his leg in an accident caused by a car's abrupt stop and a subsequent collision with a bus. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court has held that a car driver, who applies sudden brakes on a highway without any warning, can be held negligent in the event of a road accident.A bench comprising Justices Suddhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar on Tuesday observed that a driver's abrupt halt in the middle of a highway, even if triggered by a personal emergency, cannot be justified if it endangers other road users."On a highway, high speed of vehicles is expected and if a driver intends to stop his vehicle, he has a responsibility to give a warning or signal to other vehicles moving behind on the road," Justice Dhulia, who wrote the judgement for the bench, verdict came on a plea of S Mohammed Hakim , an engineering student whose left leg had to be amputated after a road accident in Coimbatore on January 7, incident occurred when Hakim's motorcycle collided with the rear of a car that had come to an unexpected a result, Hakim fell onto the road and was run over by a bus approaching from car driver had claimed that he applied brakes suddenly because his pregnant wife experienced a vomiting the court rejected this explanation, stating, "The explanation given by the car driver for suddenly stopping his car in the middle of a highway is not a reasonable explanation from any angle."Holding a car driver as 50 % liable in a road accident case, the bench did not agree to his contention that he had suddenly applied the brakes as his wife was pregnant and she had a vomiting his plea for enhancement of compensation, the bench said, "In our view, the concurrent finding that the appellant was definitely negligent in not maintaining a sufficient distance from the vehicle moving ahead and driving the motorcycle without a valid license is correct."But at the same time, the bench pointed out, it cannot be ignored that the root cause of the accident is the sudden brakes applied by the car driver."The explanation given by the car driver for suddenly stopping his car in the middle of a highway is not a reasonable explanation from any angle," the bench court held the appellant as liable for contributory negligence but only to the extent of 20 %, while making the car driver and bus driver as liable for negligence to the extent of 50 % and 30 % court computed the total amount of compensation as Rs 1.14 crore but reduced it by 20 % due to contributory negligence by the appellant, to be paid to him by the insurance companies of both the vehicles, within four the case, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal exonerated the car driver and determined the negligence of the appellant and the bus driver in the ratio of 20:80. It put the contributory negligence of 20 % on the appellant for not maintaining a sufficient distance from the Madras High Court , however, held the car driver and bus driver liable for negligence to the extent of 40 and 30 % respectively and made the appellant liable for 30 % contributory negligence.
News18
an hour ago
- News18
Sudden braking on highway is negligence, says SC
New Delhi, Jul 30 (PTI) In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court has held that a car driver, who applies sudden brakes on a highway without any warning, can be held negligent in the event of a road accident. A bench comprising Justices Suddhanshu Dhulia and Aravind Kumar on Tuesday observed that a driver's abrupt halt in the middle of a highway, even if triggered by a personal emergency, cannot be justified if it endangers other road users. 'On a highway, high speed of vehicles is expected and if a driver intends to stop his vehicle, he has a responsibility to give a warning or signal to other vehicles moving behind on the road," Justice Dhulia, who wrote the judgement for the bench, said. The verdict came on a plea of S Mohammed Hakim, an engineering student whose left leg had to be amputated after a road accident in Coimbatore on January 7, 2017. The incident occurred when Hakim's motorcycle collided with the rear of a car that had come to an unexpected stop. As a result, Hakim fell onto the road and was run over by a bus approaching from behind. The car driver had claimed that he applied brakes suddenly because his pregnant wife experienced a vomiting sensation. However, the court rejected this explanation, stating, 'The explanation given by the car driver for suddenly stopping his car in the middle of a highway is not a reasonable explanation from any angle." Holding a car driver as 50 per cent liable in a road accident case, the bench did not agree to his contention that he had suddenly applied the brakes as his wife was pregnant and she had a vomiting sensation. Allowing his plea for enhancement of compensation, the bench said, 'In our view, the concurrent finding that the appellant was definitely negligent in not maintaining a sufficient distance from the vehicle moving ahead and driving the motorcycle without a valid license is correct." But at the same time, the bench pointed out, it cannot be ignored that the root cause of the accident is the sudden brakes applied by the car driver. 'The explanation given by the car driver for suddenly stopping his car in the middle of a highway is not a reasonable explanation from any angle," the bench said. The court held the appellant as liable for contributory negligence but only to the extent of 20 per cent, while making the car driver and bus driver as liable for negligence to the extent of 50 per cent and 30 per cent respectively. The court computed the total amount of compensation as Rs 1.14 crore but reduced it by 20 per cent due to contributory negligence by the appellant, to be paid to him by the insurance companies of both the vehicles, within four weeks. In the case, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal exonerated the car driver and determined the negligence of the appellant and the bus driver in the ratio of 20:80. It put the contributory negligence of 20 per cent on the appellant for not maintaining a sufficient distance from the car. The Madras High Court, however, held the car driver and bus driver liable for negligence to the extent of 40 and 30 per cent respectively and made the appellant liable for 30 per cent contributory negligence. PTI SJK ZMN view comments First Published: July 30, 2025, 15:30 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
