Section 354 IPC Not Covered By Section 42 POCSO Act, Trial Court Erred In Not Awarding Separate Sentence: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has observed that a trial court erred in not awarding a separate sentence for the offence under Section 354 IPC (assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty) in a case involving sexual assault on a six-year-old girl, clarifying that the provision is not among the IPC offences covered by Section 42 of the Protection of Children from Sexual...
The Delhi High Court has observed that a trial court erred in not awarding a separate sentence for the offence under Section 354 IPC (assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty) in a case involving sexual assault on a six-year-old girl, clarifying that the provision is not among the IPC offences covered by Section 42 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
For context, Section 42 of the POCSO Act governs situations where the same act or omission constitutes an offence under both POCSO Act and specified provisions of the IPC. It covers overlaps with Sections 354A, 354B, 354D, 370, 370A, 375, 376 and Sections 376A to 376E IPC, but does not include Section 354 IPC.
Though the convict was found guilty of offences under Section 9(m) read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act and Sections 354, 354A, 354B and 506 IPC, the trial court, relying on Section 42 POCSO, confined the sentence to the offences punishable under Section 10 POCSO and Section 506 IPC.
While dealing with the convict's appeal, Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha clarified that Section 354 IPC is not one of the IPC offences covered by Section 42 and, therefore, the trial court should have imposed a separate sentence for that offence as well.
“Section 354 IPC for which also the accused has been found guilty does not come under Section 42 PoCSO Act. Therefore, the trial court went wrong in not awarding sentence for the offence punishable under Section 354 IPC,” the Court observed.
However, since the State had not preferred an appeal against the sentence, the Court refrained from interfering with the error.
Ultimately, finding no infirmity in the conviction, the Court partly allowed the appeal by reducing the sentence imposed under Section 10 of the POCSO Act from seven years' rigorous imprisonment to the statutory prescribed minimum punishment of five years.
It noted that although the appellant had criminal antecedents, there was no material on record regarding the status of the other criminal case pending against him. The Court also took into account his age, 62 years at the time of the incident.
Appearance: Mr. Rohan J. Alva, Advocate (DHCLSC) with Mr. Anant Sanghi, Advocate for Appellant; Mr. Satinder Singh Bawa, APP for State with SI Monika. Ms. Sowjhanya Shankaran Advocate (DHCLSC) for Victim.
Case Title: Kanhaiya Lal v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Case no.: CRL.A. 880/2025