Court’s Decision:
The Delhi High Court reclassified the conviction under the POCSO Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court found the appellant guilty of:
- Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act (sexual assault) instead of Section 6 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault).
- Section 354B IPC (assault or use of criminal force to disrobe a woman).
The High Court modified the sentence to the period already undergone while retaining the victim compensation awarded by the trial court.
Facts:
- On October 19, 2017, the mother of a three-year-old girl reported an incident involving inappropriate sexual conduct by a neighbor residing on the upper floor of her house.
- The survivor informed her mother that the accused removed her undergarments and inserted his finger into her private parts. Later, she complained of pain and redness in the affected area.
- An FIR was registered under Sections 376 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act. During investigation, the charge was enhanced to Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
- The medical examination revealed redness in the survivor’s private parts but found no signs of penetration, injuries, or bleeding.
- The trial court convicted the accused under Section 6 of the POCSO Act (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) and Section 376(2)(i) IPC (rape).
Issues:
- Was the trial court’s finding of aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376(2)(i) IPC supported by evidence?
- Should the conviction be reduced to a lesser offense under the POCSO Act or IPC due to the lack of proof of penetration?
Petitioner’s Arguments (Accused):
- Discrepancies in Testimony: The survivor and her mother provided inconsistent accounts about the sequence of events, casting doubt on the prosecution’s case.
- Medical Evidence: The medico-legal report (MLC) did not corroborate the allegation of penetration, as it only recorded redness without injuries or signs of penetration.
- Tutoring Allegation: The survivor’s testimony showed indications of tutoring by her mother, which undermined the reliability of her statements.
- Lack of Corroborative Evidence: The appellant claimed he was falsely implicated and that no material evidence supported the prosecution’s claims of penetration.
Respondent’s Arguments (Prosecution):
- Survivor’s Testimony: Despite her young age, the survivor’s statements consistently pointed to inappropriate conduct by the accused, sufficient for a conviction.
- Corroboration by MLC: The redness in the survivor’s private parts corroborated her testimony about sexual assault, even if penetration was not established.
- Benefit of Age: Minor inconsistencies in the survivor’s testimony should be attributed to her young age and should not undermine the veracity of her statements.
- No Cross-Examination: The defense did not effectively challenge the survivor’s allegations during cross-examination, indicating their acceptance of the occurrence of the incident.
Analysis of the Law:
The court examined the statutory framework under the POCSO Act:
- Section 3: Penetrative sexual assault requires evidence of penetration, which was absent in this case.
- Section 7: Sexual assault involves touching the private parts of a child with sexual intent, without requiring penetration.
- Section 29: The burden of proof shifts to the accused in POCSO cases. However, the prosecution must still establish the essential elements of the charged offense.
The court determined that the evidence supported a conviction for sexual assault under Section 7, not aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 6.
Precedent Analysis:
The court referred to the Bombay High Court judgment in Santosh v. State of Maharashtra (2024):
- The precedent established that medical evidence indicating no penetration or injuries negates a conviction under Sections 5/6 of the POCSO Act.
- In such cases, the court must consider charges under Sections 7/8 (sexual assault) instead.
Applying this reasoning, the Delhi High Court concluded that the evidence in the present case pointed to sexual assault without penetration.
Court’s Reasoning:
- Testimony Evaluation: The survivor’s testimony was credible but lacked evidence of penetration. The court emphasized that improvement in testimony over time and discrepancies with medical evidence weakened the prosecution’s case for aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
- Medical Evidence: The MLC showed redness but no injuries or signs of penetration, undermining the trial court’s finding of aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
- Error in Trial Court’s Judgment: The trial court misinterpreted the evidence and charged the accused under inappropriate provisions of the POCSO Act.
- Appropriate Conviction: The court determined that the accused was guilty of:
- Sexual assault under Sections 7/8 of the POCSO Act.
- Assault under Section 354B IPC.
Conclusion:
- The court modified the conviction to:
- Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act: Sexual assault (punishment of 3 to 5 years).
- Section 354B IPC: Assault with intent to disrobe.
- The sentence was reduced to the period already undergone (7 years, 2 months, 5 days).
- Compensation for the victim under Section 357A Cr.P.C. was upheld.
Implications:
- Judicial Clarity: The judgment underscores the importance of distinguishing between sexual assault and penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act.
- Burden of Proof: The case highlights the need for corroborative medical and testimonial evidence to justify higher charges under Sections 5/6 of the Act.
- Protecting Minors: While ensuring justice for minors, courts must also guard against over-classification of offenses that are unsupported by evidence.
This detailed judgment reinforces a balanced approach to prosecuting sensitive cases under the POCSO Act.
