The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling, has modified the conviction of a man from aggravated penetrative sexual assault to sexual assault, holding that the act of touching a minor’s private parts without penetration does not satisfy the ingredients for an offence under Section 376 AB of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, or Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
A bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Joymalya Bagchi set aside the conviction under the aforementioned sections and instead convicted the appellant under Section 354 of the IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act, reducing his sentence from twenty years to seven years of rigorous imprisonment.
Case Background
The appeal was filed by Laxman Jangde against the judgment of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur dated January 28, 2025. The High Court had upheld the Trial Court’s judgment of July 30, 2022, which had convicted the appellant under Section 376 AB of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act for an offence against a girl under the age of twelve.
The Trial Court, invoking Section 42 of the POCSO Act which provides for alternate punishment, had sentenced the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act to undergo twenty years of Rigorous Imprisonment (R.I.) and a fine of Rs. 50,000.
Arguments of the Parties
Learned senior counsel for the appellant argued that the evidence, including the FIR, the victim’s statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), and her deposition during the trial, did not prove the offence of rape or penetrative sexual assault. It was submitted that the consistent allegation was that the appellant had “touched the private parts of the victim and put his hand in his sexual organs.” This, the counsel contended, did not constitute rape under Section 376 AB of the IPC or penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, as there was no penetration. The counsel suggested that at most, the offence could fall under Section 354 of the IPC and Section 9(m) of the POCSO Act.
Conversely, learned counsel for the respondent, the State of Chhattisgarh, submitted that the appellant’s act fell within the definitions of an offence under Section 375 of the IPC and Section 3(c) of the POCSO Act. The State argued that given the victim was a girl under twelve years of age, the conviction and sentence required no interference.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
After considering the matter in depth, the Supreme Court found substance in the appellant’s submissions. The bench observed that the evidence on record did not meet the criteria for an offence under Section 375 of the IPC or Section 3(c) of the POCSO Act.
The Court stated, “A plain reading of the evidence and other materials on record reveal that the offence made out from such allegation do not satisfy the ingredients of either Section 375 of the IPC or Section 3(c) of the POCSO Act. Thus, to that extent, the conviction cannot be sustained.”
The judgment noted that the lower courts’ presumption of penetrative sexual assault was erroneous. The bench concluded, “The presumption by the Trial Court as upheld by the High Court that there was penetrative sexual assault, cannot be sustained for simple reason that the same is neither supported by the medical report nor by the statement of the victim herself on three different occasions as also, that of the mother of the victim.”
The Court found a “common thread” in all the statements, where the “direct allegation is of touching the private parts of the victim and also at the same time, the appellant touching his private organs.” In this view, the Court held that the conviction under Section 376 AB of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act could not be sustained. The appropriate sections, according to the Court, were Section 354 of the IPC (Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) and Section 9(m) of the POCSO Act (Aggravated sexual assault on a child below twelve years), which is punishable under Section 10 of the Act.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court modified the conviction of the appellant to Section 354 of the IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act. Consequently, the sentence was also modified. The appellant is to undergo five years of R.I. under Section 354 of the IPC and seven years of R.I. under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, with the sentences to run concurrently.
The Court retained the fine of Rs. 50,000, directing that it be paid to the victim as compensation within two months. The appeal was allowed to the extent indicated.
