LI Network
Published on: February 16, 2024 at 16:12 IST
The Karnataka High Court has determined that individuals convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) cannot avail themselves of the benefits under the Probation of Offenders Act.
The decision by a division bench comprising Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil overturned the trial Court’s acquittal order and sentenced the accused, Prathap, to three years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 8 of the POCSO Act.
The Court emphasized that the POCSO Act, enacted in 2012, takes precedence over the Probation of Offenders Act, which came into force earlier. The accused, seeking the benefit of probation, argued that he was 28 years old, engaged in manual labor for a living, and had two minor children. However, the prosecution contended that since Section 8 of the POCSO Act mandates a minimum sentence of three years, the Probation of Offenders Act cannot be applied.
Citing the Supreme Court judgment in Superintendent, Central Excise, Bangalore v. Bahubali (1979), the Court rejected the accused’s plea, stating that when a minimum sentence is prescribed, the Probation of Offenders Act cannot be invoked.
The Court also dismissed references to previous cases where probation benefits were granted, emphasizing that those decisions were made without considering the relevant Supreme Court judgments.
The accused had been acquitted by the trial Court on charges under Section 354A of the IPC, Section 8 of the POCSO Act, and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The allegations involved an attempted rape on October 26, 2014.
The bench, upon reviewing witness statements, found no discrediting of evidence and no significant contradictions. It rejected the accused’s claim of personal enmity over a water-related dispute, deeming it irrelevant to the charges. The Court affirmed that the offenses under the POCSO Act and Section 354A of the IPC had been established.
However, the Court upheld the trial Court’s decision to acquit the accused under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, stating that the police had invoked the offense without sufficient evidence.
As a result, the accused was sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000.
Case Title: State of Karnataka AND Prathap