Can Appeal Against Fixed Term Sentence Exceeding 14 Yrs Be Heard By Single Bench Of High Court? Supreme Court To Consider

In a convict's challenge to his 20-year jail sentence, the Supreme Court is set to consider the issue of coram required to hear and decide appeals filed in Karnataka High Court against fixed term sentences exceeding 14 years.

A bench of Justices KV Viswanathan and Vipul M Pancholi recently issued notice on a plea filed by convict-Barkath against an order passed by a Single Bench of the High Court. Vide this order, the Single Bench modifying the provision under which the convict was sentenced, imposed a sentence of 20 years, the minimum sentence prescribed for the offence under Section 376AB IPC. The trial court had also sentence him to 20 years imprisonment, but under a different provision, Section 6 POCSO Act.

Senior Advocate A Sirajudeen appeared for the petitioner. Relying on Sections 5 and 10 of the Karnataka High Court Act of 1961, he contended that as the accused was sentenced to a fixed term of 20 years, the case should have been heard by a Division Bench of the High Court. He further highlighted that for life appeals, Section 5 prescribes that the case ought to be heard by a Division Bench, but no express coram has been provided for cases involving fixed-term sentences.

It was also submitted that in many High Courts, where the sentence imposed by the trial court exceeds 10 years, appeal is heard by a Division Bench.

The case pertains to the sexual assault of an 8-year old girl, who was statedly known to the petitioner. During her summer vacations, her parents left her at the petitioner's house, who took advantage of the situation and committed penetrative sexual assault on her. After the victim complained to her parents, she was taken to a hospital and FIR got registered.

The petitioner was charged with the offenses under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376AB of IPC. The Trial Court convicted him under both provisions and sentenced him to 20 years rigorous imprisonment alongwith Rs.50,000 fine for the offense under Section 6 of POCSO Act.

In appeal, the High Court sustained the petitioner's conviction and jail sentence of 20 years, but modified the sentence as one under Section 376 IPC instead of Section 6 POCSO Act. It relied on Section 42 of the POCSO Act, which provides for alternative punishment of higher degree. The court noted that by the date of the incident, the POCSO Amendment of 2019 had not come into force and the IPC provision provided a higher degree of punishment (minimum 20 years rigorous sentence) than the POCSO Act provision (minimum 10 years rigorous sentence).

Aggrieved by the High Court decision, the petitioner filed the present petition.

Case Title: BARKATH v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, Diary No. 19195/2026

Click here to read order