Odisha POCSO Court Convicts Man Of Sexual Harassment For Kissing Minor Girl's Hand And Seeking Kiss On His Cheeks

A Special Court in Odisha has held a man guilty of committing sexual harassment under Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (the 'POCSO Act') and sentenced him to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment, for pulling the hand of a minor girl, planting a kiss on it and then seeking a kiss on his cheeks in return.

Soumyak Patra, Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO), Sambalpur was of the view that the manner of commission of the act reflected clear sexual intent on the part of the accused. The Judge accordingly observed–

“The act of the accused pulling the hand of the victim, kissing it and looking at her in a weird manner and then asking her to kiss on his cheek clearly falls under the definition of sexual harassment. The manner of the commission of the acts speaks volumes about the sexual intent of the accused. Therefore, the offence of sexual harassment has been proved against the accused.”

On 14.04.2024, the accused allegedly knocked the victim's door for laundry and later caught hold of her hand, shook it and gave a kiss on it. He also purportedly insisted her to give him a kiss and requested for her telephone number. The victim got terrified and closed the door.

Basing upon such information, the father of the victim lodged an FIR which was registered under Sections 447 (criminal trespass) and 354-A (sexual harassment) of the IPC read with Section 12 (sexual harassment) of POCSO Act. After submission of the charge-sheet under the same provisions, charges were framed.

Relying on the evidence adduced by the victim as well as her parents along with the proof of her date of birth (09.09.2012) through the school admission register, the Court came to a definite conclusion that the victim was a minor on the date of occurrence.

The next question which arose for consideration was whether the accused is guilty of committing sexual harassment of the victim. In order to prove this charge, the prosecution heavily relied upon the testimony of the victim. Apart from reiterating the FIR version, the victim also added that the accused kissed her on the left hand and said “tu bahut sundar disuchu” (you are looking very beautiful).

The aforesaid testimony of the victim was well-corroborated by the versions of her parents. They also mentioned that upon learning about the incident from the victim, they asked their neighbour to call the accused to their colony. Upon his arrival, when they inquired about the occurrence, the accused allegedly admitted to have done the same.

The defence pointed out that the informant did not mention about the accused kissing on the hand of the victim in the FIR. However, both the parents of the victim deposed to have been informed by the victim about the kissing. It was also highlighted that some of the prosecution witnesses stated that the accused kissed the right hand of the victim, while the victim herself stated that she was kissed on the left hand.

The aforementioned contradiction was projected to strengthen the defence evidence. However, the Court did not find much force therein, which accordingly held–

“The victim in her evidence has stated that the accused kissed her left hand. Except for her, none of the witnesses has stated about the accused kissing the left hand of the victim. When the alleged occurrence occurred, except for the victim and the accused no one else was present there. Therefore, the evidence of the victim in this situation is of utmost importance. There might be some contradictions here and there in the evidence of the independent witnesses and even in the evidence of the parents of the victim for that matter, but the same does not render the reliable evidence led by the prosecution in the form of the victim, untrustworthy.”

The accused took the further plea that since he belongs to a different religion, the victim's family have tried to implicate him falsely. He also took the plea of alibi by contending that he did not go out of his own house on the date of occurrence as it was the day of Hanuman Jayanti and he being a Muslim, he was advised to stay indoor considering religious volatility. However, the Court did not find such plea to be reliable.

Notwithstanding minor contradictions in the evidence of the victim and her parents, the Court was of the opinion that the prosecution was successful in proving the charges under Section 354-A of the IPC read with Section 12 of the POCSO Act against the accused, while acquitting him of the charge under Section 447 IPC.

Resultantly, the Court sentenced the convict to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay fine of ₹ 5,000/- (rupees five thousand) for the offence punishable under Section 12 of the POCSO Act and no separate sentence was awarded for offence under Section 354-A, keeping in view the provisions of Section 42 of the POCSO Act.

Case Title: State of Odisha v. Md. Zamal

Case No.: Spl. GR Case No. 16 of 2024 (Sambalpur)

Counsel for the Prosecution: Mr. Prasanna Kumar Sahoo, Special Public Prosecutor, Sambalpur

Counsel for the Accused: Mr. Md. Ansari, Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download Order