Court’s decision
The Bombay High Court at Nagpur dismissed the criminal appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellant for offences under Sections 354 and 354-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The Court held that the act of holding the hand of a minor child, when accompanied by an explicit sexual proposition and offer of money, clearly establishes sexual intent and squarely falls within the definition of “sexual assault” under Section 7, punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act.
The Court further held that by virtue of Section 42 of the POCSO Act, where an act constitutes an offence under both the IPC and the POCSO Act, punishment must follow the statute prescribing the greater punishment. Since Section 8 of the POCSO Act mandates a minimum sentence of three years, the trial court had correctly applied the POCSO framework. Finding no perversity, illegality, or infirmity in the appreciation of evidence, the appeal was dismissed and the conviction confirmed.
Facts
The prosecution case arose from incidents alleged to have occurred on two consecutive days in October 2015. The victim, a girl aged about 13 years, was alone at home while her parents were at work. On the first day, the accused came to her house under the pretext of asking for water and offered her money in exchange for allowing him to engage in sexual activity, which she did not initially comprehend. On the following day, the accused repeated the act, again seeking water, offering money, and this time physically holding her hand while making the same proposition.
Disturbed by the incident, the victim immediately approached her maternal uncle and narrated the events. The matter was reported to the police on the same day, leading to registration of the FIR. Investigation followed, including recording of statements, preparation of spot panchanama, collection of the victim’s birth certificate, and filing of the charge-sheet.
Issues
The principal issue before the High Court was whether the acts attributed to the accused, namely offering money to a minor in exchange for sexual favours and holding her hand with sexual intent, were sufficient to constitute “sexual assault” under Section 7 of the POCSO Act, punishable under Section 8.
A further issue was whether minor inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony, delay in lodging the FIR, non-examination of independent witnesses, and hostility of the panch witness were sufficient to discredit the prosecution case and warrant interference with the conviction.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The Appellant contended that the prosecution had failed to establish sexual intent and that mere holding of the victim’s hand could not amount to sexual assault under the POCSO Act. It was argued that the locality was densely populated, making the incident improbable without attracting attention. The defence highlighted discrepancies in the timing of events between the FIR and oral testimony, delay in reporting, and absence of call data records to corroborate the alleged phone call to the victim’s mother.
It was further argued that the panch witness had turned hostile, independent neighbours were not examined, and the evidence of the victim’s mother was largely hearsay. Relying on prior High Court judgments, the Appellant sought acquittal or at least dilution of the conviction under the POCSO Act.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State submitted that the testimony of the child victim was clear, consistent, and trustworthy, and required no further corroboration. It was argued that sexual intent was evident from the accused’s conduct of repeatedly approaching the child alone at home, offering money for sexual activity, and physically restraining her hand.
The prosecution contended that minor inconsistencies in timing or peripheral details are natural and do not erode the core of the case, especially in offences involving child victims. The State further relied on Section 42 of the POCSO Act to justify punishment under Section 8, being the provision prescribing the greater sentence.
Analysis of the law
The Court reiterated settled principles governing cases under the POCSO Act, emphasizing that the testimony of a child victim, if cogent and credible, can by itself form the basis of conviction. The statute is designed to protect children from all forms of sexual exploitation, including acts involving sexual intent coupled with physical contact, even if minimal.
The Court examined Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act and held that physical contact is not required to be overtly sexual in nature if it is accompanied by demonstrable sexual intent. The offering of money in exchange for sexual activity, combined with holding the minor’s hand, satisfied the statutory ingredients of sexual assault.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied on authoritative Supreme Court jurisprudence interpreting Section 354 of the IPC, which holds that the essence of the offence lies in the intention of the accused, and that even modest physical acts, when sexually suggestive, can amount to outraging the modesty of a woman or girl.
The Court also distinguished earlier High Court decisions relied upon by the Appellant, observing that those cases turned on materially different factual matrices where allegations were either inherently improbable or unsupported by credible evidence.
Court’s Reasoning
On appreciation of evidence, the Court found the victim’s testimony to be natural, spontaneous, and free from embellishment. Her version was materially corroborated by her maternal uncle, who promptly lodged the FIR, and supported by the investigating officer’s testimony. The victim’s age was conclusively established through a birth certificate, placing her well within the definition of a “child” under the POCSO Act.
The Court rejected the defence arguments relating to hostile panch witnesses and non-examination of neighbours, holding that such lapses do not undermine the prosecution where the core evidence is trustworthy. The act of holding the child’s hand, when viewed in isolation, might appear minimal, but when read with the sexual proposition and offer of money, unmistakably disclosed sexual intent.
Conclusion
The Bombay High Court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The acts committed by the accused constituted sexual assault under Section 7, punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, and also attracted offences under Sections 354 and 354-A of the IPC. The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court were affirmed, and the appeal was dismissed.
Implications
This judgment reinforces the protective scope of the POCSO Act by clarifying that sexual intent is the decisive factor, not the degree of physical contact. It sends a strong message that even seemingly minor acts, when driven by sexual intent and directed at a child, will attract the rigours of POCSO. The ruling also reiterates judicial deference to credible child testimony and discourages technical challenges aimed at diluting child-centric protections.
