Menu

Gyanendra Singh vs State of U.P.

Case Comment, Publications

Bench: Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta
Date of judgment: 7th March, 2025
Parties:
Appellant(s)– Gyanendra Singh (alias Raja Singh)
Respondent(s)– State of U.P.

Facts:

  • The Accused: Gyanendra Singh @ Raja Singh is accused in this case.
  • The Victim: The victim is his daughter, who was about 9 years old when the incident occurred.

Before the Incident

  • About two months before the incident, Smt. Rajani (the victim’s mother) had gone to her parents’ house.
  • She left her two other children, the victim (aged 9) and her son Vishnu (aged 4), in her husband’s (the appellant’s) care at their matrimonial home.

The Allegation

  • On the evening of October 22, 2015, the appellant allegedly lured his minor daughter (the victim) to the rooftop.
  • He is accused of sexually assaulting her there and threatening her to keep her detained on the roof.

After the Incident

  • The victim informed her grandfather, Ram Naresh Singh, about what had happened the next morning.
  • Ram Naresh Singh immediately called his daughter-in-law, Smt. Rajani, to inform her.
  • The appellant reportedly went missing after the incident.

At first, Smt. Rajani did not want to go back to her marital home because she was scared. But in the end, she found the courage to go to the police station and file the FIR with her father, Ranjeet Singh, and her father-in-law, Ram Naresh Singh.

  • The FIR specifically requested a medical examination of the child victim.

Investigation and Medical Examination

  • Rajesh Kumar Singh, the Investigating Officer, took charge of the investigation.
  • Dr. Manisha Shukla medically examined the victim. 
  • Forensic samples were collected from the victim for pathological examination and DNA mapping.
  • The incident site was checked, a site plan was made, and the appellant was arrested afterward. 
  • The child’s statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. She clearly and strongly accused the appellant of sexual assault.

Trial Proceedings

  • After the investigation, the trial court received a charge sheet. 
  • He faced charges under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the POCSO Act (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act).
  • The trial court formally framed these charges, but the appellant pleaded “not guilty” and opted for a trial.
  • The appellant was questioned about the allegations, which he denied, claiming false implication.
  • He stated that he had filed an FIR against his wife, the informant, and his father before. This suggests the case was filed in retaliation.
  • He also claimed that the child was living with his sister at the time of the incident.
  • No evidence was presented by the defense.

Issues raised: 

  1. Whether the conviction needs to be made only under the POCSO Act since it is a special law, or was it correct to apply the IPC too? Did using both laws affect the legality of the sentence?
  2. Whether the High Court was right in increasing the sentence even though the State didn’t file an appeal asking for a harsher punishment?

Legal Provisions:

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023 (Earlier Section 376 of the IPC)

  • Section 64 (Rape):
    • Minimum of 10 years to life in prison; also subject to a fine. 
    • 64(f): Rape by a relative, guardian, teacher, or person in authority.
    • 64(i): Rape of a woman who cannot give consent. 

 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), 2012

  • Section 3: Defines penetrative sexual assault 
  • Section 4: Punishment –
    • 10 years to life imprisonment and fine.
    • If child is under 16- 20 years to life (remainder of natural life) and fine.
  • Section 5: Defines aggravated penetrative sexual assault, e.g.:
    • Offender in authority, use of weapon, gang assault, repeated assault, victim under 12, etc.
  • Section 42: Where both POCSO and other laws apply, higher punishment to be imposed.
  • Section 42A: POCSO takes precedence over other laws when there is a conflict.

Contentions:

Appellant’s Contentions-

  • The appellant maintains that he is innocent and has been wrongfully accused in the present case.
  • The First Information Report was filed six days after the incident, with no valid explanation provided for the delay.
  • The victim’s medical test wasn’t done until seven days after the alleged crime.
  • The medical report didn’t show any signs of physical harm or provide strong proof of sexual assault.
  • The appellant alleges that he has been falsely implicated due to ongoing family tensions involving himself, his father, and his wife.
  • The appellant argued that since both IPC and POCSO cover the same offence, the POCSO Act, being a special law, should supersede the IPC under Section 42A.
  • It was contended that convicting the appellant under IPC Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i), despite the existence of corresponding POCSO provisions, was legally incorrect.
  • Counsel emphasized that Section 42A of POCSO gives it precedence over other conflicting laws, including IPC, wherever inconsistencies exist.
  • Therefore, the appellant claimed that punishment should have been awarded strictly under POCSO, not IPC.
  • It was argued that the High Court wrongly increased the severity of the sentence from general life imprisonment to life imprisonment for the convict’s entire natural life.
  • Since the State had not filed any separate appeal seeking a harsher sentence, the High Court had no jurisdiction to enhance it on its own.
  • Finally, the counsel urged that the High Court’s direction for life imprisonment till natural death was legally flawed and should be set aside.

Respondent’s contentions–

  • The respondent emphasized that the crime involved brutal sexual assault on the appellant’s own minor daughter, making it exceptionally heinous.
  • Despite the delay in filing the FIR, the medical examination showed signs consistent with sexual assault.
  • Guilt of the appellant has been established beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • The lower court’s judgment is correct and should be upheld, and the appeal dismissed.
  • It was argued that the High Court correctly exercised its authority by imposing a life sentence for the appellant’s natural life under IPC Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i).
  • The respondent maintained that the High Court’s clarification merely aligned the sentence with statutory language and did not constitute an unlawful enhancement.
    The decision to impose a stricter sentence was within the court’s discretion, considering the barbarity of the act and the need for deterrence.

Defects:

  1. Overlap Between POCSO and IPC Creates Ambiguity
    • Both POCSO and IPC punish the same act (rape of a child), but with different sentencing structures, causing confusion over which statute to apply.
    • Section 42 of POCSO mandates applying the stricter punishment, while Section 42A gives POCSO overriding effect. This creates a potential conflict in interpretation.
  2. No Clear Statutory Procedure for Choosing Between POCSO and IPC
    • There’s no detailed framework guiding how courts should decide whether to apply IPC or POCSO when both are applicable.
    • This leaves the choice entirely to judicial discretion, which can lead to inconsistent outcomes.
  3. Scope for Judicial Overreach in Sentencing
    • The High Court’s decision to raise the sentence without a separate appeal from the State revealed a gap in the process.
    • There is no statutory mechanism to protect an accused from harsher punishment being imposed on appeal without notice.

Inference:

Section 42 of the POCSO Act states that judges must follow the law that requires harsher punishment when an offence can be punished under both the POCSO Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). This case confirms this.

However, the procedural supremacy granted to POCSO under Section 42A does not override sentencing discretion or the specific mandate under Section 42.

Additionally, the judgment highlights that appellate courts cannot raise a convict’s sentence in an appeal filed only by the accused. This is true unless the State specifically asks for a longer sentence. Any increase without giving the accused a chance to respond violates natural justice and the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.


Final decision:

The Supreme Court found that the High Court incorrectly increased the punishment in a case where the State had not requested such a change. Consequently, the original sentence from the Trial Court was reinstated. The Supreme Court maintained the conviction under the IPC and POCSO Act but changed the sentence by eliminating the “natural life” requirement. The appellant will serve life imprisonment, but not for the rest of his natural life. Additionally, a fine of ₹5,00,000 was ordered in favour of the victim. The appeal was partly allowed.

Rationale:

In this case, the appellant argued that Section 42A of the POCSO Act should take precedence over the Indian Penal Code (IPC) because POCSO is a special law designed to protect children. However, the Supreme Court clarified that Section 42 applies when an act is punishable under both POCSO and the IPC. In such cases, the law requires courts to apply whichever statute provides for a more severe punishment. 

On the other hand, Section 42A deals with procedural matters. It states that in the event of a conflict between POCSO and any other law, POCSO will prevail but only to the extent of that inconsistency. The Court was clear in stating that Section 42A does not override or limit Section 42, which directly deals with sentencing.

In this case, Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of the IPC impose tougher penalties than Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act. Therefore, the Trial Court correctly applied the IPC provisions when deciding on the punishment. This aligns with Section 42 of the POCSO.

References:

  1. Gyanendra Singh (Raja Singh) vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 13 SCC 767.
  2. Drishti Judiciary, https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/current-affairs/imposition-of-the-higher-degree-of-punishment-prescribed (last visited July 22, 2025)



Author: Tanvi Aote
Government Law College