Non-Mentioning Of Specific POCSO Provision Wasn't Material : Supreme Court Affirms Conviction

The Supreme Court has held that the failure of a trial court or a High Court to specifically mention sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act while convicting an accused did not vitiate the conviction or sentence, as the facts of the case clearly attract that provision..

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Shree Chandrashekhar refused to interfere with the conviction of a man under Section 4(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, for committing an offence of penetrative sexual assault against a child.

Section 4(2) of POCSO mandates strict punishment for penetrative sexual assault committed against a child. The provision is attracted once the child's age is proved to be below 16 years and imposes a minimum sentence of 20 years of rigorous imprisonment, which can be extended till the remainder of life.

The convict approached the Supreme Court challenging the concurrent findings of the High Court, which had affirmed the Trial Court's sentencing order, which didn't refer to the provision, i.e., Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act, under which he was convicted in addition to offences under the IPC.

Rejecting the convict's argument, the Court noted that mere non-reference to the charging provision would not vitiate the sentence, once it was established that the victim's age was below 16 years.

“Once it is established that the victim was less than sixteen years of age, the only provision with which the appellant could have been convicted and sentenced, is sub Section (2) of Section 4 of the POCSO Act. Therefore, non-mentioning of particular sub-Sections of Section 4 of the POCSO Act, would not render the sentencing part of the Trial Court order and affirmed by the High Court, as illegal or vitiated.”, the Court observed.

However, acceding to the convict's plea that his sentence may be reduced considering the mitigating factors, such as a lack of criminal antecedents, no evidence of bad conduct in the jail, the court partly allowed the appeal, by modifying the sentence.

The sentence was reduced to twenty years with rigorous imprisonment.

Cause Title: SUPTAN MARAK VERSUS STATE OF TRIPURA

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 715

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Ms. Soniya Mathur, Sr. Adv. Ms. Kamlakshi Singh Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Adv. Mr. Yudhister Bhardwaj, Adv. Ms. Nikita Gill, Adv. Ms. Divya Singh Chauhan, Adv. Ms. Safeena Khan, Adv. Ms. Mansi Sridhar, Adv. Ms. Shubhi Bhardwaj, Adv. Dr. Lipika Sharma, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Sharma, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Shuvodeep Roy, AOR Mr. Deepayan Dutta, Adv. Mr. Saurabh Tripathi, Adv.