The Kerala High Court has affirmed the conviction and 10-year prison sentence of a cosmetology centre manager for sexually assaulting a 17-year-old employee, ruling that using a vibrating device on a minor’s private parts satisfies the statutory threshold for penetrative sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
In an order issued on July 28, Justice A. Badharudeen held that pressing or applying an object to a child’s private parts meets the legal standard of insertion to any extent under both the POCSO Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Dismissing the appeal, the court noted that 10 years of rigorous imprisonment is the mandatory minimum penalty prescribed under POCSO law, making any reduction in sentence legally impermissible.
Case Background and Special Court Verdict
The case originates from a July 20, 2019 incident in which the accused, serving as the manager and makeup artist at a treatment centre, took the minor staff member into a room and sexually assaulted her with a vibrating machine without her consent. The manager subsequently threatened the victim that she would be socially disgraced as a bad girl if she disclosed the assault.
The survivor, who was 17 years and 5 months old at the time, had been brought to the facility by the centre’s operator under the prospect of learning cosmetology. Following a trial, a special court on September 30, 2024 convicted the manager of penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act, alongside IPC charges including rape, outraging a woman’s modesty, and criminal intimidation with intent to disrobe. The centre’s operator was also booked for failing to report the assault to authorities after the minor disclosed the incident.
Defense Arguments and High Court Findings
In the appeal before the High Court, defense advocates M.G. Sreejith, Vidyajith M., Bincy Jose, Rojin Devassy, and Gopia K.V. argued that the prosecution’s case was undermined by an unexplained two-year delay in filing the first information report (FIR), which was lodged in 2021. Defense counsel also argued that the victim was nearly an adult at the time of the event and asserted that inconsistencies in her testimony rendered the trial court’s conviction unreliable.
Responding to these arguments, state counsel submitted that victims of sexual offenses frequently delay reporting due to trauma, fear, and societal pressure, and that such delays do not inherently discredit a prosecution case. The High Court concurred with the state, ruling that the special court was fully justified in relying on the survivor’s testimony and upholding the conviction in its entirety.
