Kanhaiya Lal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2026

The accused was prosecuted in connection with the sexual assault of a six-year-old girl in Delhi.

The prosecution alleged that the accused took the child inside his shop/hut, undressed her and touched her private parts with sexual intent.

The trial court convicted him under Section 9(m) read with Section 10 POCSO Act and Sections 354, 354A, 354B and 506 IPC.

The trial court imposed 7 years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 10 POCSO and 2 years under Section 506 IPC, with sentences running concurrently.

The accused appealed against the conviction and sentence.

The High Court found the testimony of the child victim consistent and trustworthy and upheld the convictions.

The High Court partly allowed the appeal.

The convictions under Sections 354, 354A, 354B and 506 IPC and Section 9(m) read with Section 10 POCSO Act were confirmed.

The Court held that the testimony of the six-year-old victim was credible and sufficient to sustain the conviction.

The Court specifically held that Section 354 IPC is not included within Section 42 of the POCSO Act.

Therefore, the trial court had erred in failing to impose a separate sentence for Section 354 IPC.

However, because the State had not filed an appeal against the sentence, the High Court did not enhance or otherwise alter the sentence on that count.

Considering the accused's age of 62 years at the time of the incident and the absence of material showing the status of his other criminal case, the Court reduced the Section 10 POCSO sentence from 7 years to 5 years, the statutory minimum.

The sentence under Section 506 IPC was maintained.

The judgment importantly clarifies the limited scope of Section 42 POCSO. The provision specifically identifies certain IPC offences for overlap with POCSO offences, and Section 354 IPC is not among them.

The Court therefore distinguished Section 354 from Sections such as 354A and 354B, which are expressly mentioned in Section 42.

The ruling establishes that a trial court cannot rely on Section 42 POCSO to avoid sentencing for an IPC offence that falls outside its statutory scope.

At the same time, the High Court respected the appellate limitation arising from the absence of a State appeal and did not increase the accused's punishment.

On the merits, the Court placed substantial reliance on the consistent testimony of the child victim, reiterating that a conviction can rest upon the testimony of a single witness when that testimony is reliable.

The Court also applied the sentencing principle that where the statute prescribes a minimum punishment, relevant mitigating circumstances may justify imposing the minimum statutory sentence.

The decision therefore combines two important principles: separate sentencing must follow the statutory scheme, while appellate courts must remain within the limits of the appeal before them.