Calcutta HC - POCSO Act Is Not Eligible For The Benefits Provided By The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958

The Calcutta High Court recently stated that convicts under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) are not eligible for the benefits provided by the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. This observation was made while affirming a three-year prison sentence for a man (the appellant) who had inappropriately touched a girl while she was walking with her mother. Justice Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury upheld the conviction and sentence based on the consistent testimony of the victim.

The Court dismissed the appeals requesting probation instead of imprisonment for the appellant. The appellant's counsel argued that he was a teenager at the time of the incident and had since transformed into a responsible individual who supports his family. The lawyer also emphasized the appellant's lack of prior criminal record, urging the Court not to subject him to the lifelong detrimental effects of incarceration.

However, the Court acknowledged that the POCSO Act is a specialized law, rendering the Probation of Offenders Act inapplicable.

The case originated from an incident occurring in 2014 when the appellant engaged in inappropriate physical contact. While the victim girl was walking alongside her mother on a footpath, the appellant allegedly pawed at and touched her breast. The girl reacted by screaming, which attracted attention, and the boy was apprehended. The police were promptly notified, leading to the registration of a case under Section 354A (sexual harassment) of the Indian Penal Code, coupled with Section 8 (sexual assault) of the POCSO Act.

The appellant's defense argued that the incident might have been an accidental touch, given the crowded nature of the area. However, the Court highlighted that the appellant, upon being caught, did not provide any indication that the offense was unintentional. Furthermore, the Court dismissed the assertion that the girl had not undergone a medical examination conducted by a doctor.

Considering these factors, alongside others, the Court upheld the appellant's conviction and the corresponding sentence.