Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Narula, J., while addressing a matter wherein a child aged 9 years old was sexually assaulted, held that,
Pulling down the leggings of the child victim and touching of the thighs is evident of sexual intent and accordingly constitutes an offence of sexual assault.
Appellant impugns Judgment on conviction and order on sentence whereby appellant had been convicted of an offence under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
Case of the prosecution
Victim girl who was 9 years old at the time of incident informed that the when the mother was away to her job, appellant came inside the house and removed her leggings and stated feeling/rubbing his hand on her thighs. The victim became frightened, tried to run out of the house but the appellant pulled her inside the house.
Somehow, the victim managed to free herself and went to the house of one Auntie in the neighbourhood.
Later, she informed her mother and thereafter the police was called.
Further, FIR was registered based on the above complaint.
As per the prosecution, the child victim, her brother and mother of the victim remained consistent in their respective statements given to the police as also in their testimonies before the trial court.
Section 29 of POCSO Act raises a statutory presumption against the accused.
Accused has not been able to dispel the presumption or discharge the onus. It is established from the testimony of the child victim and her brother that the appellant/accused had pulled down the leggings of the child and touched her thighs. Pulling down the leggings of the child victim and touching of the thighs is evident of sexual intent and accordingly constitutes an offence of sexual assault in terms of Section 7 of POCSO Act.
In terms of Section 9 (m) of POCSO Act since sexual assault was committed on a child below the age of 12, it would amount to aggravated sexual assault punishable under Section 10 of POCSO Act.
Bench stated that trial court passed a well reasoned order. No infirmity was found in the trail court’s order.
Thus, the appeal was dismissed. [Rajendra v. State, CRL.A. 276/2020 & Crl. M. (Bail) 438/2020, Crl. M.A. 5506/2020 & Crl. M. (Bail) 6383/2020, decided on 03-07-2020]