Bombay High Court upheld the conviction of a man for offering money and holding a 13-year-old girl’s hand with sexual intent, ruling that even minimal physical contact amounts to sexual assault under POCSO. The Court said sexual intent, not the degree of touch, is what triggers Section 7.
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court has upheld the conviction of a 25-year-old man for sexually assaulting a 13-year-old girl, clearly ruling that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 covers all types of sexualised contact with a child when there is sexual intent.
The Court said that even a very small act like holding a child’s hand while making a sexual offer is enough to attract Section 7, which is punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act.
In this case, Justice Nivedita P. Mehta was hearing the criminal appeal filed by the accused. The Court explained that the man had offered money to the girl and held her hand while asking her to allow him to “do the game,” which the child understood as a request for sexual intercourse.
According to the Court, this behaviour clearly fulfilled the legal requirement of physical contact with sexual intent under Section 7.
The Court highlighted that the focus of this provision is not how big or small the physical touch is, but the sexual intention behind it.
The High Court also pointed out that Section 42 of POCSO requires courts to apply whichever law imposes stricter punishment.
In this situation, Section 8 of POCSO carries a minimum sentence of three years, so the trial court was right in giving punishment under the special law.
According to the prosecution, the girl was 13 years old in October 2015 and was alone at home for two days when the incident happened. The accused, who was her neighbour and known to her as “Mama,” came to the house asking for water.
ALSO READ: “Disappointed”: Supreme Court Slams Kerala HC for Dropping POCSO Charges Against Teacher
On the first day, he offered her fifty rupees in exchange for sexual activity. On the next day, he again made the same offer and then held her hand, after which the frightened child immediately told her maternal uncle. The uncle went to the police station and an FIR was registered the same day.
The trial court had convicted the accused under Sections 354 and 354A of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act.
He was sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment for the POCSO offence and one year for the IPC offences, with both sentences to run concurrently.
Before the High Court, the defence argued that the prosecution had failed to prove sexual intent. It claimed that the locality was crowded and such an incident could not have happened quietly.
They also pointed out differences in the time of the incident mentioned in the FIR and during trial, argued that the panch witness had turned hostile, and said that the lack of call data records weakened the prosecution’s case.
The defence relied on earlier High Court judgments to say that a conviction under Section 8 was not justified.
The High Court rejected all these arguments. It said that when the testimony of a child victim is clear and trustworthy, it does not need separate corroboration. In this case, the girl’s statement was consistent on all important points.
The fact that she immediately informed her maternal uncle, and that the FIR was filed right away, made her version even more reliable.
The Court stated that minor inconsistencies regarding time or wording were natural, especially in cases involving children, who may not recall exact timings perfectly. The testimonies of the girl’s uncle and mother also matched the main allegation made by the child.
While interpreting Section 7 of POCSO, the Court again stressed that physical contact along with sexual intent is enough to constitute sexual assault under the Act. The contact does not have to be forceful or intrusive. Even a simple touching can become sexual assault if the intention behind it is sexual.
The Court said that offering money for sexual acts and holding the child’s hand clearly showed sexual intent. The Court also said that inducements or offers, when combined with physical contact, fall fully under the protective scope of the POCSO Act.
The Court further said that Section 42 must be applied strictly, and since the POCSO Act prescribes a higher punishment than the IPC, the trial court was right to give the sentence under Section 8.
ALSO READ: Thane Rickshaw Driver Acquitted in POCSO Case Over Schoolgirl Modesty Allegation
The Court also refused to grant benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, stating that sexual crimes against children are serious and the punishment must reflect the harm caused and protect society.
The earlier decisions cited by the accused were found to be different on facts and did not help him. In this case, there were no major weaknesses in the evidence, and the Court found the prosecution’s version reliable.
The criminal appeal was therefore dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.
Case Title:
Sheikh Rafique Sk Gulab v. State of Maharashtra
Read Judgement:
Click Here to Read More On Rape Case
