LI Network
Published on: 30 January, 2024 at 09:00 IST
In a recent ruling, the Bombay High Court has set a significant precedent by denying bail to an accused charged with sexually assaulting his nieces.
Justice Prithviraj Chavan, presiding over the case, emphasized that the mere act of touching the penis to the victim’s vagina with sexual intent falls within the purview of penetrative sexual assault on a minor, as outlined in Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO).
The Court rejected the notion that physical injuries to specific anatomical parts are essential for categorizing an act as penetrative sexual assault.
Justice Chavan highlighted, “…even in case of penetrative sexual assault, it is not essential that there must be some injury to the hymen, labia majora, labia minora of the victim. Mere touching of the penis to the private part of the victim constitutes an offence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act.”
The Court’s interpretation revolved around phrases such as ‘inserts or penetrates to any extent’ mentioned in Section 3 (a) and 3 (b) of the POCSO, expanding the definition to include any touching of the reproductive organs. The minimum punishment for this offense, as stipulated under Section 4, is 20 years.
The accused, in this case, was the uncle of the victims, and the allegations stemmed from incidents between 2016 and 2019 when the minors visited his home.
The victims’ mother filed a complaint, accusing the accused of showing explicit content, taking nude photos, and threatening the victims. The girls also claimed inappropriate touching, with the accused administering medicines when injuries occurred.
The defense argued that the case was fabricated due to a family property dispute, asserting a pending partition suit and a desire for a no objection certificate. Despite the defense’s claims of lack of visible injuries in medical reports, the court relied on statements from the victims and electronic communications, finding them substantial evidence.
The court stressed the importance of believing the child’s statements, even in the absence of strong medical evidence, citing guidelines for the medical examination of child victims. Due to the accused’s close relation to the victims, the court expressed concerns about potential influence if he were released on bail.
In concluding the denial of bail, the court remarked, “The applicant indeed betrayed the trust reposed in him by the victim and succeeded in executing his illegal act of molesting her which definitely constitutes an offence not only under the POCSO Act but also under the provision of the I.P.C.”
The case, identified as CRIMINAL BAIL APPLICATION NO.1207 OF 2022, sets a precedent in defining the scope of penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act.