Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction in POCSO Case Involving Minor Girl's Sexual Harassment

The Bombay High Court Nagpur Bench has dismissed an appeal challenging the conviction of a man for attempting to sexually assault a 13-year-old girl, affirming the trial court's findings based on the child's credible testimony. Delivered by Justice Nivedita P. Mehta on December 4, 2025, the judgment emphasizes the paramount importance of a minor victim's account in POCSO cases.

Case Background

The appeal, Criminal Appeal No. 772/2019, was filed by Sheikh Rafique Sk. Gulab, a 25-year-old resident of Bendikipura, Yavatmal, against his conviction by the Additional Sessions Judge-2, Yavatmal, in Special (POCSO) Case No. 16/2016. The trial court had sentenced him to one year of rigorous imprisonment and a Rs. 200 fine under Section 354 IPC (assault or criminal force to outrage woman's modesty), and three years' rigorous imprisonment with a Rs. 500 fine under Section 354-A IPC (sexual harassment) and Section 8 of the POCSO Act (punishment for sexual assault). Sentences were to run concurrently.

The incidents allegedly occurred on October 23 and 24, 2015, in Yavatmal, Maharashtra. The respondent was the State of Maharashtra, represented by the Yavatmal City Police. The case highlights the application of Section 42 of the POCSO Act, which mandates punishment under the more stringent provision—in this case, the three-year minimum under Section 8 POCSO over the IPC limits.

Prosecution's Case

According to the prosecution, the appellant, a neighbor known to the victim's family and addressed as "Mama," visited the 13-year-old victim's home on October 23, 2015, around noon while her parents were at work. He asked for water and offered her Rs. 50 to "allow him to do the game," interpreted as a proposition for sexual activity. The victim raised no alarm and he left.

The next day, around 2:00-2:30 PM, he repeated the approach, caught her right hand, and made the same offer. The victim jerked away, informed her maternal uncle, and they lodged an FIR at Yavatmal City Police Station, leading to Crime No. 450/2015.

The prosecution examined five witnesses: the victim (PW-1), her maternal uncle (PW-2, informant), her mother (PW-3), a panch witness (PW-4), and Investigating Officer PSI Mangesh Bhaurao Bhoyar (PW-5). Key evidence included the victim's birth certificate (dated September 6, 2002), confirming her minor status, her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., and the spot panchanama.

The Additional Public Prosecutor, Amit Chutke, argued that the victim's consistent testimony established sexual intent through the hand-holding and monetary offer, satisfying Sections 7 and 8 of POCSO. Minor inconsistencies were deemed trivial, and the case did not require independent corroboration beyond the child's reliable account.

Defense Arguments

Appellant's counsel, Shyam R. Jaiswal (appointed), contended that Section 8 POCSO was inapplicable due to lack of proof of sexual intent in holding the hand. He highlighted the densely populated slum setting, making undetected incidents improbable, discrepancies in incident timings across the FIR, victim's statement, and testimony, hearsay in PW-3's account, the unverified phone call to the mother, hostile panch witness PW-4, and the FIR filing delay. He also noted the omission of the word "game" from the FIR and absence of neighbor statements.

Reliance was placed on precedents like Manoj Suryakant Dalvi v. State of Maharashtra (2025 ALL MR (Cri.) 2258) and Santosh v. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No. 301/2022), arguing false implication in a familiar neighborhood context.

Court's Analysis and Key Principles

Justice Mehta meticulously evaluated the evidence, prioritizing the child's testimony in a child-friendly, in-camera setting. PW-1's deposition was deemed "clear, consistent, and natural," detailing the pretext of water, the Rs. 50 offer for sexual favors, and hand-holding on the second day. She identified the appellant and explained "the game" as sleeping together. Cross-examination did not shake her core account, and minor time discrepancies were dismissed as immaterial in child victim cases.

Corroboration came from PW-2's prompt FIR lodging after the victim's distressed narration and PW-3's supporting hearsay account via phone. PW-4's hostility was irrelevant, as the case hinged on direct evidence, not panchanama. PW-5 confirmed proper investigation steps, including arrest and document collection. The court noted the victim's age (13 years and 19 days) via her unchallenged birth certificate.

Rejecting defense claims, the bench held that physical contact with sexual intent (offer plus hand-holding) constituted "sexual assault" under Section 7 POCSO, punishable under Section 8. It distinguished appellant's precedents, finding no material contradictions here. Citing Raju Pandurang Mahale v. State of Maharashtra ((2004) 4 SCC 371), the court reiterated Section 354 IPC's ingredients: assault on a woman intending to outrage modesty, where "modesty" is an innate female attribute, and the acts shocked societal decency.

Under Section 42 POCSO, the three-year minimum superseded IPC punishments. The defense of neighborhood familiarity aided access but did not discredit the evidence. Probation was denied, balancing societal interest per Shri Narshiv Usapkar v. State of Goa (2012 ALL MR (Cri) 3891), given the offense's gravity against minors.

Pivotal excerpt: "In cases arising under the POCSO Act, the testimony of the child victim occupies a position of paramount importance and, if found cogent and trustworthy, can by itself form the basis for conviction."

Final Decision and Implications

The appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence. The appellant must serve the rigorous imprisonment and fines as imposed. This ruling reinforces the reliability of child testimonies in POCSO matters, even without independent witnesses, and underscores stricter sentencing for child sexual exploitation. It serves as a deterrent, prioritizing child protection amid rising concerns over minor vulnerabilities in close-knit communities.

The judgment directs prison authorities to inform the appellant and notifies the trial court for compliance, with counsel fees to be paid per rules.