Sikkim High Court Rules: “Touching a Minor’s Left Breast in a Taxi Indicates Sexual Intent; Conviction Under POCSO Act and IPC Upheld”

Court’s Decision:

The High Court of Sikkim, through Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai, upheld the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the Special Judge (POCSO) under Section 7 of the POCSO Act, punishable under Section 8, and Section 354A(2) of the IPC. The appellant was sentenced to three years’ simple imprisonment and fined ₹5,000 under the POCSO Act, with an additional one year of rigorous imprisonment under the IPC, to run concurrently. The court found that the trial court’s judgment was based on credible evidence and no grounds for interference were present.

Facts:

• Incident: On April 12, 2022, a minor victim was traveling in a taxi when the appellant, seated next to her, allegedly touched her left breast under the pretense of hugging his wife.
• Complaint: The victim shouted, asked the driver to stop the vehicle, and reported the matter to the police.
• FIR Registration: Based on the victim’s complaint, an FIR was registered against an unidentified male under Section 354 of the IPC and Sections 7/8 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
• Trial Court Proceedings: After investigation, the appellant was identified and charged. The trial court convicted him based on the victim’s consistent testimony and corroborating evidence.

Issues:

1. Sexual Intent: Whether the appellant’s actions satisfied the requirement of sexual intent under Section 7 of the POCSO Act.
2. Victim’s Age: Whether the victim’s age was adequately proven to invoke the provisions of the POCSO Act.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. Lack of Intent: The appellant argued that the act was inadvertent, occurring due to space constraints in the vehicle.
2. Malice: He claimed that the victim fabricated the allegations because he refused her request to exchange seats earlier during the journey.
3. Age Dispute: The appellant contended that the prosecution failed to conclusively establish the victim’s age.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. Consistent Testimony: The prosecution highlighted that the victim had consistently stated the appellant’s inappropriate behavior both in court and in her Section 164 CrPC statement.
2. Corroboration: Witnesses, including other passengers and the driver, supported the victim’s account.
3. Proof of Age: The prosecution submitted the victim’s birth certificate, verified by the health center, to establish that she was a minor at the time of the incident.

Analysis of the Law:

1. Sexual Intent (Section 7 of the POCSO Act):
   • The court emphasized that touching specific body parts with sexual intent constitutes an offense under Section 7 of the POCSO Act.
   • In this case, the appellant’s act of touching the victim’s left breast was deemed intentional and sexual in nature.
2. Evidentiary Value of Victim’s Testimony:
   • The court held that the victim’s consistent testimony, supported by witnesses, proved the appellant’s guilt.
   • While the victim’s Section 164 CrPC statement was not considered substantive evidence, her in-court testimony held significant weight.
3. Age Verification:
   • The court relied on the victim’s birth certificate and the health center’s records, both corroborating her date of birth as July 25, 2005.
   • The court rejected the appellant’s contention, stating that no evidence or cross-examination had questioned the authenticity of these documents.

Precedent Analysis:

The court relied on two significant rulings:

1. CIDCO vs. Vasudha Gorakhnath Mandevlekar (2009):
   • Birth registers maintained by statutory authorities hold a presumption of correctness under Section 35 of the Evidence Act and are superior to school records unless proven otherwise.
2. R. Shaji vs. State of Kerala (2013):
   • Section 164 CrPC statements are only corroborative and not substantive evidence, emphasizing the importance of in-court testimony.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. Sexual Intent:
   • The court rejected the appellant’s claim of inadvertence, noting that touching the victim’s left breast was a deliberate act indicating sexual intent.
   • It observed that the appellant’s behavior, combined with the victim’s immediate reaction, supported the prosecution’s case.
2. Victim’s Age:
   • The court found the birth certificate and corroborative records sufficient to establish that the victim was a minor (17 years old) at the time of the incident.
3. Credibility of Evidence:
   • The court highlighted that the victim’s testimony was consistent and unshaken during cross-examination.
   • Witnesses corroborated the victim’s account of events, and there was no evidence of animosity to suggest a motive for false allegations.

Conclusion:

The court upheld the trial court’s judgment, concluding that the appellant’s actions amounted to an offense under the POCSO Act and the IPC. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were affirmed.

Implications:

1. Victim Testimony: This judgment reinforces the principle that consistent and credible victim testimony can form the basis of conviction in sexual offense cases.
2. Sexual Intent under POCSO: The decision clarifies that touching sensitive body parts can constitute sexual intent, satisfying the requirements under the POCSO Act.
3. Age Verification: The ruling underscores the evidentiary value of statutory birth records in proving the age of a minor, an essential element under the POCSO Act.

Also Read – Orissa High Court: “Material Non-Disclosure Voids Insurance Claim” – Insured’s Concealment of CP Angle Tumor Diagnosis Leads to Setting Aside of Ombudsman’s Award