Lexpedia — Digital Smart Study
Latest JudgementConstitution of India

X vs. State of Maharashtra, 2025

The minimum punishment of 20 years under amended Section 6 POCSO Act is mandatory and not open to judicial discretion.

Supreme Court of India·29 May 2025
X vs. State of Maharashtra, 2025
Constitution of India
Share:

Judgement Details

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date of Decision

29 May 2025

Judges

Justice B.V. Nagarathna ⦁ Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Facts of the Case

  • The petitioner, aged 23 years, was convicted for aggravated penetrative sexual assault of a 6-year-old minor girl.

  • He was sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment, which is the minimum punishment under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, as amended in 2019.

  • A Special Leave Petition (SLP) was filed before the Supreme Court challenging the Bombay High Court’s order dated January 8, 2024, which upheld the conviction and sentence.

  • The convict’s counsel argued for reduction of sentence, citing:

    • His young age (23 years),

    • "Extraordinary circumstances",

    • Alleged delay in FIR filing (6 days),

    • Victim’s parents being medical assistants yet not noticing signs of assault.

  • The plea of juvenility was raised but had already been rejected, as the accused was above 18 years old at the time of the offence.

Issues

  1. Can the minimum statutory punishment of 20 years under Section 6 of the POCSO Act be reduced by the Supreme Court?

  2. Do the circumstances presented amount to "extraordinary circumstances" warranting interference by the Court under Article 136?

Held

  • The minimum punishment of 20 years under amended Section 6 POCSO Act is mandatory and not open to judicial discretion.

  • No grounds were made out for reduction of sentence.

  • The SLP was dismissed.

Analysis

  • The judgment upholds the legislative mandate under the 2019 amendment to the POCSO Act, which raised the minimum punishment for aggravated sexual assault.

  • It emphasizes that courts cannot override statutory minimum sentences even under Article 136, absent express legislative provision or miscarriage of justice.

  • This ruling sends a strong signal about the non-negotiable nature of punishments in heinous crimes against children.

  • The Court also rejected common mitigating arguments (youth, delay in FIR) as insufficient when the law mandates minimum penal consequences.