Introduction
The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) has held that if an adult grabs a minor girl’s hand and offers money for sexual favors, it counts as “sexual assault” under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO). A bench led by Justice Nivedita P. Mehta rejected the appeal of a 25-year-old man and upheld his 3-year prison sentence under Section 8 of POCSO.
Facts of the Case
In October 2015, the accused, the victim’s neighbour, approached a 13-year-old girl twice while her parents were away. On the first occasion, he offered her ₹50 and asked her to “allow him to do the game,” which the girl later said meant sleeping with him. The second time he returned, he again made the same offer and forcibly grabbed her right hand. The girl pulled away, raised an alarm, and her family filed a First Information Report (FIR) under sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the POCSO Act. The trial court convicted him in 2019, sentencing him to three years’ rigorous imprisonment.
In his appeal, the accused argued that mere hand-holding did not prove sexual intent. He also pointed out a delay in filing the FIR and claimed the victim omitted the word “game” during complaint.
What the Court Held
The Court said that holding the child’s hand while offering money and inviting sexual activity clearly showed sexual intent. Such behavior met the definition of “sexual assault” under Section 7 and punishable under Section 8 of POCSO. It emphasised that POCSO covers all forms of sexual assault on minors, including inducement or attempted assault.
The Court also declared the child victim’s testimony to be trustworthy, finding her account “clear, consistent and natural.” Minor discrepancies highlighted by the defence, such as timing variation or hearsay from the victim’s mother, did not weaken the prosecution’s case.
Because POCSO prescribes a minimum sentence of three years, the Court upheld the trial court’s sentence and refused to grant the accused probation under the Probation of Offenders Act, stressing that offences against minors call for stricter deterrence.
Implications of the Judgment
This ruling expands the interpretation of “sexual assault” under POCSO to include non-penetrative acts like holding a minor’s hand when paired with sexual intent and inducement. It reinforces that courts must treat even such “lesser” physical contact seriously when it involves a minor. By refusing probation despite the accused’s clean record, the Court signals that society’s interest in child protection outweighs leniency. Finally, the judgement underscores that a child’s credible testimony holds great weight in POCSO cases, even if some details are imperfect.
