Bombay High Court Criticizes Lenient Sentence Under POCSO Act
In a recent case involving the attempted rape of a child, the Bombay High Court has raised concerns over the leniency of a 3-year jail sentence imposed by a special judge, especially in light of the stringent provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act). This case, identified as Rodu Bhaga Wagh v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., prompted Justice Bharati Dangre to express grave reservations about the recurring errors made by judges and special prosecutors appointed under the POCSO Act, potentially leading to miscarriages of justice.
The High Court underscored the significance of the POCSO Act in safeguarding children from grave sexual offenses, emphasizing the need for a dedicated statute due to the inadequacies of provisions in the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It criticized the State and Special Public Prosecutors for seemingly overlooking the flawed execution of the legislation.
As a result, the Bombay High Court has directed the principal secretary of the State's law and judiciary department to provide an affidavit outlining steps to address such gross errors in POCSO Act implementation. The court urged the department to specify how it plans to respond when such significant lapses are brought to its attention. This directive is to be executed within two weeks, and the necessary materials will be presented by the public prosecutor of the High Court.
Furthermore, the principal secretary has been tasked with proposing a mechanism to raise awareness about the POCSO Act. This is a critical step considering that even the investigating agency in the mentioned case failed to invoke the appropriate provisions of the law.
The case involved a 64-year-old man convicted of attempting to rape a 10-year-old child. The trial court imposed a 3-year rigorous imprisonment sentence, citing Section 18 of the POCSO Act, which deals with attempts to commit an offense in conjunction with Sections 4 and 6, which pertain to sexual assault and penetrative sexual assault.
The High Court questioned the rationale behind the trial court's decision to impose a mere 3-year sentence when the minimum punishments for the main offenses outlined in Sections 4 and 6 were 7 years and 10 years, respectively, with the possibility of life imprisonment. The Court stressed that the law does not allow for a punishment less than the minimum prescribed, only permitting discretion between the minimum and maximum sentences.
The High Court also raised concerns about the accountability of prosecutors and judges who failed to identify such errors in the application of the POCSO Act. It suggested that it would issue appropriate directives to enhance accountability among POCSO judges once it receives the State government's affidavit on the matter.
Advocates Samay Pawar and Ramnik P Pawar represented the accused, while Additional Public Prosecutor YM Nakhwa represented the State, and Advocate Abbas Z Mookhtiar represented the complainant in this case.
Click Here to: Download/View Related File
TAGS: Bombay High Court POCSO Act Lenient Sentence Child Rape Attempt Justice Errors Accountability Awareness Principal Secretary Trial Court Special Judge.
