Touching private parts of child will attract POCSO offence; absence of injury irrelevant: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court recently held that touching private parts with sexual intent would be construed as sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) [Ramchandra Shrimant Bhandare vs The State of Maharashtra].Justice Sarang V Kotwal stated that absence of injury on the survivor would make no difference to a case of sexual assault as Section 7 (sexual assault) of the Act states that even touching private parts with sexual intent is enough to attract the offence."The absence of injury mentioned in the medical certificate will not make any difference to her case because the very nature of the offence of sexual assault defined under Section 7 of the POCSO Act mentions that even touching private part with sexual intent is sufficient to attract the provisions of Section 7 read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act," the Court said.It, therefore, dismissed an appeal filed by a man convicted for sexually assaulting a five-year-old girl..According to the prosecution, the survivor girl was playing outside her house when the appellant took her with him, closed her eyes and touched her private parts. After the girl narrated the incident to her mother, a First Information Report (FIR) was lodged and the girl's statement came to be recorded pursuant to which the appellant was arrested.He was convicted under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of POCSO Act and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years by a Special POCSO Court in Mumbai. He then moved the High Court to challenge his conviction.Advocate Sushan Mhatre, appearing for the appellant, maintained that the appellant was falsely implicated in the case following a quarrel between him and the girl's father. He underlined that the FIR was lodged two days after the incident and the delay was not explained by the prosecution. Further, he stated that the medical examination of the survivor revealed no injuries which made the prosecution case doubtful. He, therefore, prayed for the conviction to be set aside..The Court noted that the girl and her mother had described the incident in sufficient detail and the girl did not appear to be tutored. "In this case, the ocular evidence of the victim and her mother inspires confidence and there is no reason to doubt their versions," it stated..The Court ruled that the defence of the appellant that no injury was found on the survivor's body was not relevant and, therefore, refused to interfere with the trial court's order convicting the appellant..[Read Judgment]