Introduction
The Orissa High Court has upheld the conviction of a man under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, holding that inserting a hand inside a minor girl’s pant with sexual intent amounts to “sexual assault” under Section 7 of the Act, even when penetrative sexual assault is not proved.
Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi delivered the judgment while dismissing an appeal filed by the accused against his conviction by the Special POCSO Court.
Case Background
The case arose from an incident that allegedly took place on July 9, 2023. According to the prosecution, the accused, a grinder mechanic, visited the house of the victim’s relatives. During his visit, he allegedly called the minor girl near him, forcibly kissed her on the cheek and lips, and put his hand inside her pant.
The victim later informed her family about the incident, leading to the registration of an FIR and a criminal investigation.
Following the investigation, police filed a charge sheet under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act, including charges of aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
Dispute Over Penetrative Assault
During the trial, the prosecution alleged that the accused had inserted his finger into the victim’s vagina. However, the High Court noted that this allegation was not consistently supported by the evidence.
The Court observed that the victim had not mentioned finger insertion in her statement recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Further, medical evidence did not reveal any injury to the victim’s private parts.
As a result, the Court agreed with the trial court’s decision to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused regarding charges of rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act.
Court’s Findings On Sexual Assault
Despite rejecting the allegation of penetrative assault, the Court found that the victim’s testimony regarding dragging, kissing, and the accused placing his hand inside her pant remained consistent throughout the proceedings.
The Court held that such conduct clearly involved physical contact with sexual intent and therefore satisfied the definition of sexual assault under Section 7 of the POCSO Act.
Since the victim was below 12 years of age at the time of the incident, the offence qualified as aggravated sexual assault, attracting punishment under Section 10 of the Act.
Other Arguments Rejected
The accused argued that the prosecution’s case should fail because no Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted. The Court rejected this contention, noting that the witnesses were already familiar with the accused and therefore a TIP was unnecessary.
The Court also found that minor inconsistencies in witness statements did not undermine the core allegations made by the victim.
Final Verdict
The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court for offences under Sections 452, 354 and 354-A of the IPC, along with Sections 10 and 12 of the POCSO Act.
The Court concluded that even in the absence of proof of penetration, physical contact involving sexual intent against a child is sufficient to attract liability for sexual assault under the POCSO Act.
Case Title
Bablu Verma v. State of Odisha
