Anurupa Pal
Published On: March 17, 2022 at 18:50 IST
The Bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay Oka issued Notice on an Appeal Filed by the Minor Survivor’s Mother Against the Verdict of the Kerala High Court which held that such a Statement from the Survivor would not establish Penetrative Sexual Assault under Section 3(b) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
The Case refers to an Incident where a Man Allegedly Trespassed into the House of a 12-Year-old Girl and Sexually Assaulted her while she was Watching Television.
The Kerala High Court Verdict came on the Appeal filed by the Accused against the decision of the First Additional District.
The Sessions Court, Kollam which found him Guilty under Section 451 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
For the Offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) he was Sentenced by the Trial Court to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and to Pay Fine of ₹50,000, and in Default of Payment of Fine, to undergo simple Imprisonment for Three more Months under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
The Accused was also Sentenced by Trial Court to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and to pay Fine of Rs. 25,000 and in default of Payment of Fine to Undergo Simple Imprisonment for Three more Months for the Offence Punishable under Section 451 Indian Penal Code.
“Penetrative Sexual Assault- A person is said to Commit “Penetrative Sexual Assault” if he inserts, to any extent, any object, or a part of the body, not being the Penis, into the Vagina, the Urethra or Anus of the Child or makes the Child to do so with him or any other person;”
The Kerala High Court disagreed and held that the words used by the survivor which translates from Malayalam to “Pricking” with the Medical Evidence and did not conclusively prove the Offence of “Penetrative Sexual Assault”
“In order to attract the Offence under Section 3(b) of the POCSO Act, the Prosecution should have a definite Case that the Accused had inserted his finger into the Vagina of the Victim girl. Cambridge Dictionary defines the word ‘insert’ to mean ‘to put something inside something else’. A case of insertion of a finger cannot, therefore, be inferred from the word ‘kutthi’ used by the Victim girl,” the High Court said.
The Alteration of Conviction and Sentence by The Kerala High Court has now been Challenged before The Supreme Court of India.
Also Read: 2017 Sexual Assault Case: The Apex Court Grants Bail to the Co-Accused Martin Antony