Putting Hand Inside Minor Girl's Pant Amounts To 'Sexual Assault' U/S 7 Of POCSO Act: Orissa High Court

Affirming the conviction and order of sentence recorded by the trial Court, a Single Bench of Dr. Justice Sanjeeb Kumar Panigrahi observed–

“This Court further finds that the conduct of the accused, namely dragging the victim, kissing her and inserting his hand inside her pant, clearly constitutes physical contact with sexual intent and squarely falls within the ambit of “sexual assault” as defined under Section 7 of the POCSO Act. Considering the age of the victim, this Court finds no infirmity in the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial court in holding the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act.”

As per the prosecution case, on 09.07.2023, the accused-appellant, who was a grinder mechanic, came to the house of elder brother-in-law of the informant (mother of the victim). At that time, the victim along with her sister were playing in that house. The appellant allegedly requested the sister-in-law of the informant to prepare tea for him.

During such time, he entered inside the house, called the victim near him and forcibly kissed her on her cheek and lips. It was further alleged that the appellant put his hand inside the pant of the victim and inserted his finger into her vagina. Thereafter, the victim allegedly escaped from the spot and hid herself, while the appellant fled away.

On the basis of such allegations, an FIR was lodged and investigation was taken up. On the completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted for commission of offences under Sections 452 (house trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint)/376(AB) (rape on woman under twelve years of age)/354 (outraging modesty of woman)/354-A (sexual harassment) IPC read with Sections 6 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) and 12 (punishment for sexual harassment) of the POCSO Act. The ASJ-cum-Special Court under the POCSO Act, Cuttack convicted the appellant under Sections 452/354/354-A of the IPC and Sections 10 (punishment for aggravated sexual assault) and 12 of the POCSO Act. Challenging such conviction, the appellant preferred this criminal appeal.

Upon considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Court affirmed the finding of the trial Court regarding age of the victim. By relying upon the birth certificate issued by the Registrar of Birth and Death, CMC Niali, wherein the date of birth of the victim has been reflected as 01.11.2014, it was held that the victim was below 12 years of age at the time of the incident.

The appellant raised the issue of non-holding of Test Identification Parade (TIP) to ascertain his identity. However, the Court nixed such argument by holding that merely not conducting TIP is not fatal for the prosecution, especially when the witnesses were previously well acquainted with the appellant.

Though the appellant attempted to weaken the prosecution case by highlighting certain discrepancies, the Court did not find such contradictions fatal. Nevertheless, the allegation of inserting finger inside the vagina of the victim was held to be suspicious, especially considering the fact that the victim did not utter a word regarding the same in her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC, nor did the medical evidence support the claim of any external injury to the private part. Thus, the Court held–

“The learned trial court was, therefore, justified in extending benefit of doubt to the appellant in respect of the offences punishable under Section 376(AB) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. However, merely because the allegation relating to penetrative sexual assault was not established, the consistent testimony of the victim regarding dragging, kissing and inserting his hand inside her pant cannot be discarded, particularly when the same remained substantially consistent throughout.”

The Court was of the firm view that the conduct of the appellant in dragging the victim, kissing her and inserting his hand inside her pant apparently shows physical contact with sexual intent and hence, it falls within the definition of “sexual assault” as defined under Section 7 of the POCSO Act. Moreover, considering the age of the victim, which was found to be below 12 years, the offence gets qualified as “aggravated sexual assault” punishable under Section 10 the said Act.

Additionally, the Court also upheld the conviction and order of sentence passed against the appellant for commission of offences punishable under Section 452/354/354-A of the IPC read with Section 12 of the POCSO Act.

Case Title: Bablu Verma v. State of Odisha

Case No: CRLA No. 508 of 2025

Date of Judgment: May 22, 2026

Counsel for the Appellant: Ms. Rita Singh, Advocate

Counsel for the State: Ms. Sarita Moharana, Addl. Standing Counsel; Mr. Kuldeep Mohanty, Advocate

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 52