Making Minor Touch Private Part With Sexual Intent Amounts To Aggravated Sexual Assault Under POCSO Act: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that making a minor child touch the private part with sexual intent amounts to aggravated sexual assault under Section 10 of the POCSO Act.Justice Neena Bansal Krishna upheld the conviction and seven years sentence of a man for committing aggravated sexual assault upon a minor girl aged 3 years and 11 months. However, the Court set aside his conviction for...
The Delhi High Court has held that making a minor child touch the private part with sexual intent amounts to aggravated sexual assault under Section 10 of the POCSO Act.
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna upheld the conviction and seven years sentence of a man for committing aggravated sexual assault upon a minor girl aged 3 years and 11 months.
However, the Court set aside his conviction for the offences under Section 354 (outraging modesty), 354A (sexual harassment) and 354B (assaulting or using criminal force on a woman) of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
The Victim's mother gave a statement that the convict, who was tenant in their house, had flashed his private part and made the minor touch it.
The convict challenged his conviction and sentence on the ground that there was a delay in registration of FIR and that there was no satisfaction recorded that the child understood the duty of speaking the truth, as mandated in law.
Sustaining his conviction and sentence under Section 10 of POCSO Act, Justice Krishna said that the statement of the testimony of the victim reflected that before recording her statement, questions were addressed to her to ensure that she was comfortable and was competent to give a statement.
Therefore, the Court rejected the contention raised by the convict that the competency of the child was not assessed before recording of her statement. It said that delay was sufficiently explained and cannot be held to be fatal.
“Making a small Child touch the private part with sexual intent amounts to aggravated sexual assault and therefore, the offence under Section 10 POCSO Act, was established,” the Court said.
Counsel for Appellant: Mr. Prateek Kumar, Ms. Ankita, Mr. Prassant Kumar Sharma and Mr. Chetan Charitra, Advocates
Counsel for Respondent: Mr. Utkarsh, APP for the State; Ms. Tanya Agarwal (DHCLSC) and Mr. Krishna Kumar Keshav, Advocates for Complainant
Title: DHARMENDRA KUMAR v. STATE