The Delhi High Court has ruled that forcing a minor child to touch one's private parts with sexual intent is punishable under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act ... read more

The Delhi High Court has ruled that forcing a young child to touch one's private parts with sexual intent amounts to aggravated sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna delivered the verdict while dismissing the appeal of a man who was convicted under Section 10 (punishment for aggravated sexual assault) of the POCSO Act. The man exposed his private parts to a girl aged around four years and forced her to touch them.

Under POCSO, sexual assault on a child under the age of 12 is considered aggravated sexual assault. The appellant was a tenant in the minor's home. The trial court convicted him in July 2024 and sentenced him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment. The incident occurred in June 2022.

The court held that forcing a minor child to touch his private parts with sexual intent constitutes aggravated sexual assault and therefore constitutes an offence under Section 10 of the POCSO Act. The appeal is devoid of merit and is dismissed along with the pending applications.

In its judgment, passed on January 5, the court rejected the accused's claim that the victim had been tutored and that there was no concrete evidence against him. The court stated that the victim's statements consistently contained the core allegation of sexual assault, and that minor variations in expression did not affect her credibility.

The court also said that the counselling provided by the DCW counsellor, which is legally mandatory, cannot be termed as tutoring as it was done to help the victim, who was three years and 11 months old at the time of the incident, deal with the trauma.

The court noted that when the girl narrated the incident to her mother in the presence of the appellant, the accused himself reached the police station before the complainant and her family. This demonstrates the veracity of the statements made by the girl and her mother.

The court also rejected the accused's defense of delay in filing the FIR. The court stated that the delay was adequately explained and could not be considered fatal, as it was natural for the minor's mother to wait for her husband to return from another city.

The Court agreed with the trial court's observation that incidents of child sexual abuse are often underreported due to shame, guilt and family honour, especially when the perpetrator is a known person.

 PC:Jagran