Yet Another Shocker: Holding Girl’s Hands, Opening Zip Not Sexual Assault Under POCSO: Bombay HC

The judgement

In her judgement, Justice Ganediwala noted that while the prosecution has established that the accused entered the house of the victim with an intention to outrage her modesty or sexually harass her, it has not been able to prove the charge of ‘sexual assault’ or ‘aggravated sexual assault’.

The high court noted that the definition of “sexual assault” under the POCSO Act says that there has to be “physical contact with sexual intent without penetration”.

“The acts of ‘holding the hands of the prosecutrix (victim)’, or ‘opened zip of the pant’ as has been allegedly witnessed by the prosecution witness (mother of the victim), in the opinion of this court, does not fit in the definition of ‘sexual assault’,” Justice Ganediwala was quoted as saying by PTI.

The high court further said that the facts of the present case are not sufficient to fix the criminal liability on the accused (Kujur) for the alleged offence of aggravated sexual assault.

“At the most, the minor offence punishable under section 354-A(1)(i) of the IPC read with section 12 of the POCSO Act is proved against the appellant (Kujur),” the court said.

What happened on the day of the incident

On February 12, 2018, Kujur had entered the victim’s house when her mother was away at work. When the mother returned, she found the accused holding her daughter’s hand with the zip of his pants open.

While recording her evidence in the lower court, the mother had said that her daughter had informed her that the accused person had removed his private part from the pant and asked the victim to come to bed for sleeping.

The high court quashed Kujur’s conviction under sections 8 and 10 of POCSO Act, but upheld his conviction under the other sections.

The court, however, said it was modifying the sentence and noted that Kujur has so far undergone five months in prison.

“Considering the nature of the act, which could be established by the prosecution and considering the punishment provided for the aforesaid crimes, in the opinion of this Court, the imprisonment which he has already undergone would serve the purpose,” the court said.

The court said the accused shall be set free if he is not required in any other case.