Click the Play button to listen to article

The Tripura High Court has held that the prosecution's failure to establish penetrative sexual assault warrants modification of a conviction under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.

Observing that the evidence established physical contact with sexual intent without penetration, the Court converted the conviction to an offence under Section 7 of the POCSO Act, punishable under Section 8, and reduced the accused's sentence from 20 years to five years of rigorous imprisonment.

Division Bench of Justice Dr. T. Amarnath Goud and Justice Biswajit Palit remarked that: “The prosecution in this case, has failed to establish the charge of the penetrative sexual offence by the appellant upon the victim..It appears that it is a case of sexual assault but not a case under Section 6 of the POCSO Act..The appellant has committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of the POCSO Act, for which he is liable to be punished under Section 8 of the POCSO Act.”

The prosecution alleged that on May 6, 2021, the accused entered the house of a seven-year-old girl when she was alone and sexually assaulted her. The incident came to light on May 9, 2021, when the victim disclosed it to her mother after experiencing pain in her private parts.

An FIR was registered on May 11, 2021, under Sections 376(3) and 506 of the IPC, read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 449 and 342 of the IPC, sentencing him to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 6.

Aggrieved, the accused challenged the conviction before the High Court.

The High Court observed that although there were no independent eyewitnesses to the incident, the victim's testimony before the Trial Court and her statement recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC remained consistent. The Court rejected the accused's contention regarding contradictions in her testimony, noting that the alleged discrepancies were not confirmed through the Investigating Officer.

However, upon examining the victim's testimony and medical evidence, the Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. It observed that the evidence established sexual contact without penetration, attracting Section 7 of the Act.

Accordingly, the Court modified the conviction to Section 7, punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, and reduced the sentence from 20 years to five years of rigorous imprisonment, along with a fine of ₹10,000. The appeal was partly allowed.

Date of Decision: 07.10.2026

Tags: