Varanasi POCSO Court Sentences Juvenile Tried as Adult to 20 Years

Varanasi: A special POCSO court in Varanasi has sentenced an offender, who was 16 years old at the time of the crime, to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment for the rape of a four-year-old child. The judgment arose from a case registered at Lalpur-Pandeypur police station on 26 March 2021.

Special Judge Nitin Pandey, also an additional district and sessions judge, convicted the offender under Section 376AB of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 5(m) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The court imposed a fine of ₹40,000 and directed that half be paid to the survivor as compensation.

The offender was tried as an adult after the Juvenile Justice Board conducted the preliminary assessment required in certain alleged heinous offences involving children aged 16 to 18. The board considered whether he had the mental and intellectual capacity to understand the nature and consequences of the act and sent the matter to the Children’s Court.

That process does not erase juvenile status. The Juvenile Justice Act still bars a death sentence or life imprisonment without the possibility of release for an offence committed by a child. The court referred to that limit while deciding that the maximum permissible fixed punishment was warranted in this case.

The prosecution examined six witnesses, including the child’s parents, a medical officer, the investigating officer and the person who recorded the FIR. The court found the testimony and medical evidence sufficient to establish the offence beyond reasonable doubt. Reporting must not disclose the survivor’s name, address, school, family photograph or any detail that could identify her.

The judgment also directed the district probation officer to prepare an individual care plan for the offender’s rehabilitation. That instruction is not a reduction of accountability. Juvenile law requires the system to consider reintegration even when a young person is tried as an adult and receives a long custodial sentence.

The direction that the natural guardians bear primary responsibility for the fine may receive further legal scrutiny depending on the written judgment and applicable procedure. The full order, rather than a brief oral summary, should guide any interpretation of liability and appeal rights.

For the survivor’s family, a conviction after five years does not close the need for support. Compensation, trauma-informed counselling, education continuity and protection from public identification should continue without forcing the child to repeatedly recount the offence.

The case combines two duties the justice system must hold at once: imposing a proportionate sentence for grave harm and applying the special legal safeguards that exist when the offender was also a child at the time. Serious reporting should recognise both without sensationalising either.