Santosh Maroti Bhandare v. State of Maharashtra & Anr., 2026
The judgment strengthens the mandatory nature of Statutory Minimum Sentence under special statutes like POCSO.
Judgement Details
Court
Bombay High Court
Date of Decision
20 February 2026
Judges
Justice Rajnish R. Vyas
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
The accused was tried before the Special Judge (POCSO) for offences under IPC and POCSO Act.
-
He was convicted under Section 376(2)(n) IPC and Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
-
He was sentenced to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment, which was below the statutory minimum prescribed under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
-
He was acquitted of offences under Sections 363 and 366-A IPC.
-
The accused filed an appeal challenging his conviction.
-
The victim filed an appeal under Section 372 CrPC seeking:
-
Imposition of the statutory minimum punishment.
-
Reversal of acquittal under Sections 363 and 366-A IPC.
-
-
The High Court examined whether the sentence awarded was legally sustainable.
Issues
-
Whether the victim was a “child” within the meaning of the POCSO Act?
-
Whether Consent of Minor is legally relevant in offences under the POCSO Act?
-
Whether imposing the Statutory Minimum Sentence amounts to Enhancement of Sentence under Section 386 CrPC?
-
Whether the Appellate Court can impose the Mandatory Punishment where the trial court awarded a lesser sentence?
Judgement
-
The Court held that the prosecution successfully proved that the victim was a minor and therefore a “child” under the POCSO Act.
-
It ruled that even if consent were assumed, it would be immaterial in law because the victim was below 18 years of age (Consent of Minor is irrelevant).
-
The Court distinguished between:
-
Enhancement of Sentence (discretionary increase), and
-
Imposition of Statutory Minimum Sentence (mandatory correction).
-
-
It held that where a statute prescribes a Mandatory Punishment, courts have no discretion to award lesser punishment.
-
The award of a lesser sentence by the trial court was a Sentencing Illegality.
-
The appellate court, while correcting this Sentencing Illegality, was not “enhancing” the sentence but merely bringing it in conformity with law (Correction of Sentence).
-
Referring to Section 42 POCSO, the Court observed that when an act constitutes offences under both IPC and POCSO, the offender must receive the greater punishment.
-
The accused’s appeal against conviction was dismissed.
-
Exercising Appellate Powers under Section 386 CrPC, the sentence was modified to:
-
20 years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 6 POCSO Act, and
-
10 years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 376(2)(n) IPC.
-
Held
-
Imposition of Statutory Minimum Sentence does not amount to Enhancement of Sentence under Section 386 CrPC.
-
Appellate courts are duty-bound to undertake Correction of Sentence where there is Sentencing Illegality.
-
Consent of Minor is legally irrelevant under the POCSO Act.
-
The Statutory Minimum Sentence of 20 years under Section 6 POCSO Act was rightly imposed.
Analysis
-
The Court clarified the conceptual distinction between Enhancement of Sentence and Correction of Sentence.
-
It reinforced that courts can impose only punishments authorised by law, especially where Mandatory Punishment is prescribed.
-
The judgment strengthens the mandatory nature of Statutory Minimum Sentence under special statutes like POCSO.
-
It upholds the legislative intent of stricter punishment for sexual offences against children.
-
The ruling ensures uniformity in sentencing and prevents Sentencing Illegality.
-
It strengthens victim’s rights by permitting exercise of Appellate Powers to impose lawful punishment.