Retrospective Application - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Reduces Life Term in POCSO Case, Cites Constitutional Protection Against Harsher Retroactive Penalties

23Aug

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Reduces Life Term in POCSO Case, Cites Constitutional Protection Against Harsher Retroactive Penalties

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act but modified the sentence. Relying on Article 20(1) of the Constitution, it held that the enhanced punishment of imprisonment for the remainder of natural life, introduced by the 2019 amendment, could not be applied retrospectively to an offence committed prior to its enactment. Facts Of The Case: On May 20, 2019, the appellant, Saturam Mandavi, was accused of luring a five-year-old girl to his house and raping her while her parents were away attending a marriage ceremony in the village. The victim's mother, upon returning and being unable to locate her daughter, confronted the appellant at his house, after which he fled. An FIR was subsequently registered against him. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under S...

Can Juvenility Be Claimed Decades Later? Supreme Court Says Yes in Historic 2025 Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Sections 342 and 376 IPC, rejecting arguments about discrepancies in prosecution evidence and delay in FIR registration. However, the Court accepted the appellant’s juvenility claim under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, based on school records confirming his age as 16 years at the time of the offense. The sentence was set aside, and the case was referred to the Juvenile Justice Board for appropriate orders, affirming that juvenility can be raised at any stage, even post-conviction, as per precedents like Dharambir v. State (NCT of Delhi). The Court emphasized that credible prosecutrix testimony, corroborated by medical evidence, suffices for conviction in rape cases. Facts Of The Case: The case involves an appeal against the ...

Supreme Court Rules Customs Duty Drawback Circular Has Retrospective Effect

The Supreme Court held that Circular No. 35/2010-Cus. dated 17.09.2010, which clarified the entitlement of merchant exporters to claim 1% All Industry Rate (AIR) customs duty drawback irrespective of availing CENVAT benefits, was clarificatory and declaratory in nature. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Circular must be applied retrospectively, ensuring uniform benefits from 2008 onwards. The judgment emphasized that clarificatory circulars, which resolve ambiguities in existing notifications without creating new rights, operate retrospectively to align with the legislative intent. The High Court's order denying retrospective application was set aside. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, M/s Suraj Impex (India) Pvt. Ltd., a merchant exporter of Soyabean Meal (SBM), claimed All Industr...