Holding

The sentence imposed was not grossly inadequate or disproportionate and therefore cannot be enhanced under Section 418 of the BNSS, 2023.

Summary

The State of Gujarat appealed against the sentence imposed on Ranjit @Rajver Jilubhai Gida for offences under IPC sections 363, 366, 376, 114 and POCSO Act sections 4 and 11, seeking enhancement under Section 418 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. The trial court had sentenced the accused to seven years rigorous imprisonment for the POCSO offences and varying terms for the IPC offences, which the State claimed were not proportionate to the gravity of the crime involving a 16‑year‑old victim. The High Court examined whether the sentence was grossly inadequate or disproportionate and whether later statutory amendments increasing minimum punishments could be applied retrospectively. It held that at the time of the offence (2015) the applicable minimum punishments were seven years, and the trial court’s discretion was exercised within the statutory limits. Citing Supreme Court precedents on sentencing discretion and proportionality, the Court found no compelling reason to enhance the sentence. Consequently, the appeal for enhancement was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the sentence imposed by the Special POCSO Court is grossly inadequate or disproportionate warranting enhancement under Section 418 BNSS, 2023.
Whether amendments to IPC and POCSO Act increasing minimum sentences, enacted after 2015, can be applied retrospectively to the offence.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 114, s. 363, s. 366, s. 376
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Acts. 11, s. 4

Subjects

sentencingenhancementproportionalityPOCSOIPCBNSSappellate reviewdiscretionchild sexual abuse

Judgment

R/CR.A/810/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/CRIMINAL APPEAL (FOR ENHANCEMENT) NO. 810 of
2026

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA

and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

=========================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No

=========================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
RANJIT @RAJVER JILUBHAI GIDA
=========================================
Appearance:
MR JAY S. MEHTA, APP for the Appellant(s) No. 1
=========================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI

Date : 29/04/2026

ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. T. VACHHANI)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the State invoking
the provisions of Section 418 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha
Sanhita(for short B.N.S.S), 2023 seeking enhancement of the
sentence imposed by the learned 4 th Additional Sessions Judge
(Special POCSO Court) in Special POCSO Case No. 74 of 2015,
arising out of C.R. No. I-5 of 2015 registered with Junagadh B-
Division Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections
363, 366, 376, 114 of the IPC and Sections 4 and 11 of the POCSO
Act and sentencing the respondent for the offence under Section

Page 1 of 9
R/CR.A/810/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026

366 of the IPC to undergo 02 years rigorous imprisonment and a
fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further
undergo thirty days simple imprisonment; for the offence under
Section 376 of the IPC to undergo 07 years rigorous imprisonment
and a fine of Rs.1000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further
undergo six months rigorous imprisonment; for the offence under
Section 04 of the POCSO Act to undergo 07 years rigorous
imprisonment and a fine of Rs.5,000/-, and in default of payment of
fine, to further undergo thrity days simple imprisonment and for
the offences under Section 11 of the POCSO Act to undergo 03
years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default
of payment of fine, to further undergo 30 days simple
imprisonment.

2. The State has consciously confined the scope of the present
appeal only to the issue of enhancement of sentence and has,
therefore, refrained from making any submissions on the merits of
the conviction recorded by the learned 4 th Additional Sessions
Judge (Special POCSO Court). In view of the limited scope of the
present appeal, a detailed narration of the entire factual matrix is
not warranted. However, for the purpose of appreciating the
gravity of the offence and to effectively address the issue involved
in the present appeal, the facts in brief, as emerging from the
record, are required to be narrated.

3. As per the prosecution case, the respondent–accused had
lured and taken away the victim, who was aged about 16 years at
the relevant point of time. It is alleged that the accused had enticed
the minor victim on two occasions. On the second occasion, the
victim went missing from the house of the complainant’s brother at
around 3:00 PM and could not be traced despite extensive search.

Page 2 of 9
R/CR.A/810/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026

4. The complainant suspected that the accused, aged about 20-
23 years, had again abducted the minor victim with ill intention.
Pursuant thereto, investigation was carried out by the Investigating
Agency and upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet came
to be filed against the accused before the learned 4 th Additional
Sessions Judge (Special POCSO Court) where the accused was put
to trial. Upon conclusion of the trial and appreciation of the oral as
well as documentary evidence on record, the learned Special Judge
convicted the accused and imposed the sentence as stated
hereinabove.

5. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the inadequacy of the
sentence awarded, the State has preferred the present appeal
under Section 418 of B.N.S.S,, contending that considering the
nature of the offence, the age of the victim and the manner in
which the crime was committed, the punishment imposed by the
learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge (Special POCSO Court) is
neither just nor proportionate and therefore deserves
enhancement.

6. Further the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant–
State, that the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge (Special
POCSO Court) ought to have taken into consideration the
provisions of Sections 4 and 11 of the POCSO Act. It is submitted
that the victim was a minor aged about 16 years and the accused
had enticed and abducted her. It is further submitted that the
victim had stated on oath that the accused had abducted her while
she was a minor and established physical relations with her.
However, from the impugned judgment, it transpires that there was
no direct or indirect evidence on record except the statement of the
victim and the medical evidence. The learned 4 th Additional

Page 3 of 9
R/CR.A/810/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026

Sessions Judge (Special POCSO Court), after appreciating the
evidence in entirety on record and by granting due opportunity of
hearing to the concerned, exercised discretion in imposing the
sentence.

6.1 The issue that therefore arises for consideration before this
Court is whether the sentence so imposed can be said to be grossly
inadequate or disproportionate so as to warrant interference by
this Court in exercise of powers under Section 418 of B.N.S.S.

7. At this juncture, it is required to be placed on record that
since the present appeal, as fairly submitted by the learned APP for
the State, is confined only to the issue of enhancement of sentence,
the other aspects of the matter are not required to be dealt with.
However, in order to address the issue as to whether the sentence
awarded by the learned 4th Additional Sessions Judge (Special
POCSO Court) is appropriate, adequate, just and proportionate,
commensurate with the nature and gravity of the crime and the
manner in which the crime was committed, it is necessary to
consider the crux of the conclusions recorded by the learned 4 th
Additional Sessions Judge (Special POCSO Court) along with
provisions contenting punishment.

8. While equating the facts of the case on hand, it emerges that
the victim was about 16 years of age at the time of the incident.
However, the offence in question pertains to the year 2015 and,
therefore, the provisions as they stood at the relevant time would
govern the field.

8.1 At the relevant point of time, Section 376 of the IPC

Page 4 of 9
R/CR.A/810/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026

prescribed a minimum sentence of seven years rigorous
imprisonment, extendable to life, along with fine. The subsequent
enhancement of minimum punishment to ten years, brought into
effect by later amendments including those applicable where the
victim is below 16 years, is prospective in nature and cannot be
applied to the present case.

8.2 So far as Section 4 of the POCSO Act is concerned, even at
the relevant time, the said provision prescribed a minimum
punishment of seven years rigorous imprisonment which could
extend to life imprisonment. The amendment to Section 4 of the
POCSO Act enhancing the minimum sentence to ten years and
inserting sub-section (2) providing for minimum twenty years
rigorous imprisonment for penetrative sexual assault on a child
below sixteen years of age was brought into force by the Protection
of Children from Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act, 2019, which is
prospective in nature and has no application to the present case.

8.3 Thus, the sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment
imposed upon the respondent-accused under Section 4 of the
POCSO Act is just, adequate and proportionate to the facts of the
case and the statutory provisions prevailing at the time of
commission of the offence. The same, therefore, does not call for
any enhancement.

Section 4 of the POCSO Act :-
It is also pertinent to note that Section 4 of the POCSO Act has been
amended by the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
(Amendment) Act, 2019. By the said amendment, Section 4 has been
renumbered as Section 4(1) and in “(a) sub-section (1) as so
renumbered, the words “seven years” have been substituted by the
words “ten years”. Further, after sub-section (1), the following sub-

Page 5 of 9
R/CR.A/810/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026

sections have been inserted: (2) Whoever commits penetrative sexual
assault on a child below sixteen years of age shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but
which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean
imprisonment for the remainder of natural life of that person, and
shall also be liable to fine. (3) The fine imposed under sub-section (1)
shall be just and reasonable and paid to the victim to meet the medical
expenses and rehabilitation of such victim.”

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has referred to the case of
Soman vs. State of Kerala, reported in (2013) 11 SCC 382 and
Alister Anthony Pareira v. State of Maharashtra reported in
(2012) 2 SCC 648 and has made observations in Paragraphs 10,
11, 12, 13 and 14 as under :-

“10. Currently, India does not have structured
sentencing guidelines that have been issued either
by the legislature or the judiciary. However, the
Courts have framed certain guidelines in the
matter of imposition of sentence. A Judge has wide
discretion in awarding the sentence within the
statutory limits. Since in many offences only the
maximum punishment is prescribed and for some
offences the minimum punishment is prescribed,
each Judge exercises his discretion accordingly.
There cannot, therefore, be any uniformity.
However, this Court has repeatedly held that the
Courts will have to take into account certain
principles while exercising their discretion in
sentencing, such as proportionality, deterrence
and rehabilitation. In a proportionality analysis, it
is necessary to assess the seriousness of an
offence in order to determine the commensurate
punishment for the offender. The seriousness of
an offence depends, apart from other things, also
upon its harmfulness.

11. This Court in the case of Soman Vs. State of
Kerala [(2013) 11 SCC 382] observed thus :

“27.1. Courts ought to base sentencing
decisions on various different rationales –

Page 6 of 9
R/CR.A/810/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026

most prominent amongst which would be
proportionality and deterrence.

27.2. The question of consequences of
criminal action can be relevant from both a
proportionality and deterrence standpoint

27.3. Insofar as proportionality is concerned,
the sentence must be commensurate with the
seriousness or gravity of the offence.

27.4. One of the factors relevant for judging
seriousness of the offence is the
consequences resulting from it.

27.5. Unintended consequences/harm may
still be properly attributed to the offender if
they were reasonably foreseeable. In case of
illicit and underground manufacture of
liquor, the chances of toxicity are so high
that not only its manufacturer but the
distributor and the retail vendor would know
its likely risks to the consumer. Hence, even
though any harm to the consumer might not
be directly intended, some aggravated
culpability must attach if the consumer
suffers some grievous hurt or dies as result
of consuming the spurious liquor.”

12. The same is the verdict of this Court in Alister
Anthony Pareira Vs. State of Maharashtra [(2012)
2 SCC 648] wherein it is observed thus:

“84. Sentencing is an important task in the
matters of crime. One of the prime objectives
of the criminal law is imposition of
appropriate, adequate, just and

Page 7 of 9
R/CR.A/810/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026

proportionate sentence commensurate with
the nature and gravity of crime and the
manner in which the crime is done. There is
no straitjacket formula for sentencing an
accused on proof of crime. The courts have
evolved certain principles: the twin objective
of the sentencing policy is deterrence and
correction. What sentence would meet the
ends of justice depends on the facts and
circumstances of each case and the court
must keep in mind the gravity of the crime,
motive for the crime, nature of the offence
and all other attendant circumstances.”

10. In Bed Raj v. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in 1955 (2)
SCR 583, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has concluded that the
question of sentence is a matter of discretion and it is well settled
that when discretion has been properly exercised along accepted
judicial lines, an appellate court should not interfere to the
detriment of the accused person except for very strong reasons,
which must be disclosed on the face of judgment. It was further
held that in a matter of enhancement, there should not be
interference when the sentence passed imposes substantial
punishment wherein it has been held that in matters relating to
enhancement of sentence, interference is not warranted where the
sentence imposed is just and proper.

11. From the aforementioned observations, it is clear that the
principle governing the imposition of punishment will depend upon
the facts and circumstances of each case. However, the sentence
should be appropriate, adequate, just, proportionate and
commensurate with the nature and gravity of the crime and the

Page 8 of 9
R/CR.A/810/2026 JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2026

manner in which the crime is committed. The gravity of the crime,
motive for the crime, nature of the crime and all other attending
circumstances have to be borne in mind while imposing the
sentence. It further transpires as observed that the Court cannot
afford to be casual while imposing the sentence, inasmuch as both
the crime and the criminal are equally important in the sentencing
process. The Courts must see that the public does not lose
confidence in the judicial system. Imposing inadequate sentences
will do more harm to the justice system and may lead to a state
where the victim loses confidence in the judicial system and resorts
to private vengeance.

12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the sentence imposed by the learned 4 th
Additional Sessions Judge (Special POCSO Court) cannot be said to
be either inadequate or disproportionate so as to warrant
interference in an appeal for enhancement under Section 418 of
BNSS, 2023. The learned 4 th Additional Sessions Judge (Special
POCSO Court) has exercised discretion judiciously and within the
statutory framework. No compelling or exceptional circumstances
are made out by the State to justify enhancement of sentence.
Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed. Record and
Proceedings be sent back to the concerned Special Court forthwith.

(ILESH J. VORA,J)

(R. T. VACHHANI, J)
Kaushal Rathod
Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judges.
Digitally signed by: KAUSHAL MAHESHBHAI RATHOD(HCD0078), ENGLISH STENOGRAPHER GRADE TWO CLASS TWO, at High Court of Gujarat on 29/04/2026 15:48:05

Page 9 of 9