State v. Deepak, 2026

The case arose from a State appeal challenging the acquittal of the accused in offences involving kidnapping, wrongful confinement and aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act.

The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court convicted the accused for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 342 IPC along with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

During the hearing on sentence, the convict requested release on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

The convict argued that he was 21 years old at the time of commission of the offence in 2014, had no criminal antecedents, and was the sole earning member of his family.

The State opposed the plea by contending that Section 6 of the POCSO Act prescribes a minimum punishment of 10 years, which may extend to life imprisonment, thereby excluding the applicability of probation.

The State further argued that under the Probation of Offenders Act, probation cannot be granted where the offence is punishable with life imprisonment.

The Court examined the applicability of Sections 4 and 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act in cases involving serious offences under the POCSO Act.

The Delhi High Court held that probation cannot be granted in serious offences under the POCSO Act where the punishment may extend to life imprisonment.

The Court accepted the State’s contention that Section 6 of the POCSO Act prescribes a minimum sentence of 10 years which may extend to life imprisonment and therefore probationary relief is barred.

The Bench relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in Jugal Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar (1972), wherein it was held that an offence does not cease to be punishable with life imprisonment merely because a lesser sentence may also be imposed.

The Court clarified that for applicability of Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, the relevant age is the age of the accused on the date of conviction and sentencing and not the date of commission of offence.

Since the accused was above 21 years of age at the time of conviction in May 2026, the statutory protection under Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act was held to be unavailable.

The Bench also referred to the Karnataka High Court decision in State of Karnataka v. Prathap & Anr. (2024), which held that the provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act do not apply to offences under the POCSO Act.

The Court observed that the POCSO Act was enacted to ensure protection of children against sexual offences and therefore its objectives and stringent punishments must be strictly enforced.

The accused was sentenced to the minimum punishment of 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

The Court additionally awarded compensation of ₹10.5 lakh to the child survivor considering the gravity of the offence and emotional trauma suffered.

The judgment reinforces the strict legislative intent behind the POCSO Act by refusing leniency in serious sexual offences involving children.

The Court adopted a victim-centric approach and emphasized child protection over rehabilitative considerations available under probation laws.

By interpreting “offence punishable with life imprisonment” broadly, the Court aligned itself with the precedent laid down by the Supreme Court in Jugal Kishore Prasad.

The ruling clarifies an important legal ambiguity regarding the relevant age for applicability of Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act.

The Court’s reasoning strengthens the deterrent purpose of the POCSO Act and limits judicial discretion in granting probation in grave offences.

The judgment contributes to consistency in interpretation by relying upon both Supreme Court and Karnataka High Court precedents.

The decision highlights that beneficial legislations like the Probation of Offenders Act cannot override the stringent framework and objectives of special statutes like the POCSO Act.

The award of compensation reflects judicial recognition of the psychological and emotional harm suffered by child victims of sexual offences.