JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J. 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC preferred by the appellant-accused herein against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.11.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 165/2016 by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 376 (2)(F) of IPC & 06 of POCSO Act, 2012. [However, punished only U/s 376 (2)(F) of IPC, as the same is higher in degree to that of S.06 of POCSO, as provided U/s 42 of POCSO Act, 2012] Rigorous imprisonment for life till death with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 06 months. [However, punished only U/s 376 (2)(F) of IPC, as the same is higher in degree to that of S.06 of POCSO, as provided U/s 42 of POCSO Act, 2012] Rigorous imprisonment for life till death with fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount additional R.I. for 06 months. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Aarti Mishra, W/o Shri Gyandutt Mishra, on 29.10.2016 lodged a written report in Bhilai JRP police station against the accused/appellant Phoolchand to the effect that her daughter/victim, aged about 8 years, is studying in Kendriya Vidyalaya B.M.Y. Charoda since 1st standard. On 18.10.2016, her daughter was shown to Dr. Manju Shukla for the problem of vomiting. When her daughter was asked what she eats, her daughter told with fear that the school's headmaster, Phoolchand Sir calls her from the ground during the game period and puts his penis in her mouth and makes her suck it. On refusing, he presses her head. After going in the mouth, it becomes bigger and a foul smell comes out of the mouth, due to which she vomits. On the applicant asked her daughter as to when this has been happening, she said that she did it for the first time during the F.A.One Sessions of 2nd standard which was in July, and since then till date 26.10.2016, she has been doing it continuously during the game period. On the basis of written complaint vide Ex.P-1, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-2. The statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded vide Ex.P-16. On the basis of written complaint vide Ex.P-1, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-2. The statement of the victim under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded vide Ex.P-16. The victim was subjected to medical examination in which it came to know that the victim was raped. The Birth Certificate and certificate and copy of admission register of victim was seized vide Ex. P-5 & Ex.P-9C, respectively. As per Birth Certificate (Ex.P-5) and copy of admission register (Ex.P-9C) the date of birth of the minor victim is 14.11.2008, meaning thereby, she was aged about 8 years, 1 month & 12 days at the time of the incident. Minor victim (PW-9) was medically examined by Dr. Manju Rathore (PW- 3) and medical report was obtained vide Ex.P-7. In the medical report (Ex.P-7) doctor opined that no definite opinion could be given and no internal or external injuries were found in or around the mouth of the victim. 3. After due investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge for trial in accordance with law. The appellant/accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence. 4. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 20 documents. The statement of the appellant was taken under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, 4 witnesses (DW-1 to DW-4), 2 documents and 7 Articles have been exhibited by the appellant in his defence. 5. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant for the offence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 6. 5. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant for the offence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offence by recording a finding which is perverse to the record as there is no evidence on record upon which his conviction could have been based and even otherwise, at the time when the offence was committed, in Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, minimum sentence prescribed was 10 years which has been enhanced to 20 years by amendment and which has been made effective from 16.08.2019, therefore, at the most, 10 years be awarded to the appellant for the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. He would rely upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Sonu Kushwaha, (2023) 7 SCC 475 to buttress her submission. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel, would support the impugned judgment and submit that prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt. He would further submit that considering the age of minor victim, who was below 10 years at the time of offence as per Birth Certificate (Ex.P-5) and copy of admission register (Ex.P-9C); further considering the evidence of the minor victim (PW-9) and other evidence available on record, the conviction of the appellant is well merited and the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 9. Considering the age of the minor victim (PW-9) as per Birth Certificate (Ex. P-5) and copy of admission register (Ex.P-9C), she was minor at the time of offence; furthermore considering the statements of victim (PW-9), Arti Mishra (PW-1), mother of the victim and Investigating Officer, Smt. Daya Kurre (PW-8) and also considering the other evidence available on record, we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant herein for the offence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment. 10. 10. Now, the question would be whether, the learned trial Court is justified in awarding sentence for imprisonment of life to the appellant for having committed offence under Section 376 (2)(F) of IPC & Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 or the same is on higher side and can be reduced, as contended by learned counsel for the appellant by placing reliance on a recent decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sonu Kushwaha (supra). 11. In the matter of Sonu Kushwaha (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court finding the accused therein to be guilty of having committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault punishable under Section 06 of the POCSO Act, 2012 proceeded to convict him for the said offence and upon further finding that the minimum punishment prescribed for offence punishable under Section 06 of the POCSO Act, 2012 at the time when offence was committed i.e. prior to 16.08.2019, was 10 years’ RI, awarded him sentence for 10 years’ RI with fine of Rs.5,000/-and held in Para-11, 12 & 13 as under: “11. Section 6, as applicable before its substitution on 16-08-2019, read thus: "6. Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault. Whoever, commits aggravated penetrative sexual assault, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine." On the date of the commission of the offence, rigorous imprisonment for ten years was the minimum sentence prescribed for the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault. From 16th August 2019, the minimum sentence has been enhanced to twenty years. However, the amended provision will not apply to this case as the incident has taken place prior to 16th August 2019. 12. Surprisingly, the High Court has observed that Section 5 was not applicable, and the offence committed by the respondent falls under the category of a lesser offence of penetrative sexual assault, which is punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. Thus, the High Court committed an obvious error by holding that the act committed by the respondent was not an aggravated penetrative sexual assault. In fact, the Special Court was right in punishing the respondent under Section 6 and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs.5,000/. 13. Thus, the High Court committed an obvious error by holding that the act committed by the respondent was not an aggravated penetrative sexual assault. In fact, the Special Court was right in punishing the respondent under Section 6 and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs.5,000/. 13. The POCSO Act was enacted to provide more stringent punishments for the offences of child abuse of various kinds and that is why minimum punishments have been prescribed in Sections 4, 6, 8 and 10 of the POCSO Act for various categories of sexual assaults on children. Hence, Section 6, on its plain language, leaves no discretion to the Court and there is no option but to impose the minimum sentence as done by the Trial Court. When a penal provision uses the phraseology "shall not be less than.", the Courts cannot do offence to the Section and impose a lesser sentence. The Courts are powerless to do that unless there is a specific statutory provision enabling the Court to impose a lesser sentence. However, we find no such provision in the POCSO Act. 14. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the respondent may have moved ahead in life after undergoing the sentence as modified by the High Court, there is no question of showing any leniency to him. Apart from the fact that the law provides for a minimum sentence, the crime committed by the respondent is very gruesome which calls for very stringent punishment. The impact of the obnoxious act on the mind of the victim-child will be life-long. The impact is bound to adversely affect the healthy growth of the victim. There is no dispute that the age of the victim was less than twelve years at the time of the incident. Therefore, we have no option but to set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and restore the judgment of the Trial Court. 15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 18th November 2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.5415 of 2018 is quashed and set aside and the judgment and order dated 24th August 2018 passed by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge POCSO Act, Jhansi in Special Session Trial No.134 of 2016 is restored. The impugned judgment and order dated 18th November 2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.5415 of 2018 is quashed and set aside and the judgment and order dated 24th August 2018 passed by the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge POCSO Act, Jhansi in Special Session Trial No.134 of 2016 is restored. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal No.5415 of 2018 filed before the High Court stands dismissed. The respondent shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and shall pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-.” 12. Returning to the facts of the present case in the light of principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sonu kushwaha (supra), it is quite vivid that the date of incident is before 26.10.2016 and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 has been amended on 16.08.2019 by which for offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 minimum sentence has been enhanced from 10 years to 20 years, as such, on the date of offence the minimum sentence was 10 years. Considering the age of the minor victim (PW-9) to be 8 years, 1 months and 12 days on the date of offence; evidence of Arti Mishra (PW-1) and other evidence available on record, we while affirming the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 376 (2)(F) of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, in the facts and circumstances of the case we deem it appropriate to award him sentence for a period of 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment by reducing it from imprisonment for life. However, the fine amount imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact. The appellant is reported to be in jail since 30.10.2016 i.e. 7 years, 10 months and 10 days, the same period shall be adjusted in his jail sentence. 13. This criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. 14. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned and to the Superintendent of Jail where he is lodged and suffering jail sentence, forthwith for information and necessary action, if any.