Factual Background:

The matter arose at the stage of sentencing after the Delhi High Court had, by an earlier judgment dated 4 May 2026, reversed an order of acquittal and convicted the respondent, Deepak, for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366 and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

Following conviction, the respondent sought release on probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. It was argued that he was approximately twenty-one years old at the time of commission of the offence, had no prior criminal antecedents and was the sole breadwinner of his family. It was further submitted that the incident had occurred in 2014 and that both the victim and the convict had since moved on with their lives. On these grounds, the respondent requested the Court to adopt a reformative approach and release him on probation of good conduct.

The State opposed the application and argued that offences punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act carry punishment extending to imprisonment for life. Consequently, the respondent was not entitled to the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act. The State further contended that the relevant age for considering probation was the age of the accused at the time of conviction and sentencing and not at the time of commission of the offence.

Court Analysis:

The Court examined the scheme of the Probation of Offenders Act and the POCSO Act and considered various judicial precedents. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Jugal Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar, wherein it was held that the benefit of probation cannot be extended in respect of offences punishable with imprisonment for life, even where the statute also prescribes a lesser punishment.

Applying the said principle, the Court held that Section 6 of the POCSO Act prescribed punishment ranging from a minimum term of imprisonment to imprisonment for life. Since imprisonment for life formed part of the permissible punishment, the offence fell outside the scope of the Probation of Offenders Act. The Court also relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Sudesh Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand and clarified that the relevant age for determining entitlement under Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act is the age of the offender on the date of conviction and sentencing. As the respondent was above twenty-one years of age on the date of conviction, he could not avail the statutory protection intended for youthful offenders.

The Court emphasized the object and purpose of the POCSO Act, namely the protection of children from sexual exploitation and abuse. Considering the gravity of aggravated penetrative sexual assault and the legislative intent behind prescribing stringent punishment, the Court found no justification for extending probationary benefits.

Order of the Court:

The Court dismissed the application seeking release on probation. The respondent was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 6 of the POCSO Act along with sentences under Sections 366, 363 and 342 IPC. All sentences were directed to run concurrently. The Court further awarded compensation of ₹10.5 lakhs to the child victim under the applicable victim compensation scheme and directed the authorities to ensure compliance.

Written by Adv. K. Sri Hamsa