Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Gau) 872

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.
Sh. Roneihsanga – Appellant
Versus
State of Mizoram Aizawl – Respondent
CRL.A(J)/1 of 2024
Decided On : 30-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Ms. B. Lalramhnemi, Amicus Curiae.
For the Respondent: Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, Addl. P.P., Mizoram, Mr. Lalrokunga Pautu, Legal-Aid-counsel

Penetrative sexual assault does not necessitate actual penetration. Manipulation of a child's body part with the intent to facilitate penetration satisfies the statutory requirements, regardless of whether the physical act of penetration is fully completed or results in visible physical injury.

Headnote:(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 3 and 6 - Penetrative sexual assault - Definition of manipulation under Section 3(c) - Whether actual penetration is a prerequisite - Held, no - Any physical contact or manipulation of a child’s body to facilitate penetration, even if unsuccessful, constitutes penetrative sexual assault - Absence of physical injury cannot negate the commission of the offence when corroborated by consistent evidence of the survivor and eyewitnesses. (Paras 37, 39, 40)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for attempted sexual assault on a minor. The survivor alleged the appellant locked him in a room, forcibly removed his clothing, and attempted penile-anal penetration, causing pain. Although a medical examination revealed no physical injuries or spermatozoa, an eyewitness testified to observing the conduct upon hearing the survivor's cries. The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the absence of physical evidence and proof of penetration rendered the conviction unsustainable.

Findings of Court:
The court emphasized that "manipulation" under Section 3(c) does not necessitate successful penetration. The consistent testimony of the survivor and the eyewitness, coupled with the admissions made during the investigation, provided sufficient evidence to establish the commission of the offense, regardless of the medical report's findings.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the failure to achieve physical penetration precludes a conviction for penetrative sexual assault and whether the absence of medical findings of injury is fatal to the prosecution’s case.

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that Section 3(c) creates a broader scope for liability by criminalizing any manipulation of a child’s body intended to cause penetration, thereby rejecting the necessity of actual penetration as a categorical precondition for the offense.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. background and procedural history of the appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. assessment of testimonial evidence and witnesses. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
3. legal contentions regarding penetrative sexual assault definitions. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
4. judicial interpretation of section 3(c) pocso act requirements. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)
5. final appellate decision and administrative closure. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48)

JUDGMENT :

MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.

1. Heard Ms. B. Lalramhnemi, the learned Amicus Curiae for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. Mary L.Khiangte, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State as well as Mr. Lalrokunga Pautu, learned legal-aid-counsel, appearing for the respondent No. 2.

2. This appeal has been registered on filing of an appeal petition by appellant, namely, Roneihsanga, who is presently detained in District Jail, Kolasib, where he is serving out his sentence. He has impugned the judgment dated 25.01.2023, passed by the Court learned Additional Sessions Judge, (FTC), Kolasib in Sessions Case (K) Case No. 3/2022, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand) and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for twenty days.

3. Since, the appellant has filed this appeal in the form of an appeal petition from jail, Ms. B. Lalramhnemi was appointed by this Court as Amicus Curiae to defend the cause of the appellant.

4. The facts relevant for consideration of this jail appeal, in brief, are that on 20.04.2021, the father of the victim boy, namely, Seltawna, had lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-charge of Bilkhawthlir Police Outpost under Vairengte P.S. Case No. 12/2021, inter alia, alleging that on the eve of 19.04.2021 between 4:00 PM to 4:30 PM, the son of the first informant, aged about fourteen years, went out to take bath. From there, he was called by the present appellant to his home where he took off the clothes of the son of the first informant and by pinning his son to the bed, he tried to have anal sex with him. It is also stated in the FIR that the son of the first informant (herein after referred to as “victim boy”), felt it painful and he struggled and fought with the appellant.

5. On receipt of the aforesaid FIR, Vairengte P.S. Case No. 12/2021 was registered under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and investigation was initiated. During the course of the investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the complainant as well as victim and also medically examined the victim, collected the date of birth certificate of the victim. The Investigating Officer also visited the place of occurrence of offence and recorded the statement of witnesses. The victim was also examined under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The present appellant was arrested during the course of investigation on 20.04.2021. The present appellant also made confessional statement during the course of the investigation where he admitted his guilt. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was laid against the present appellant under Section 4 of the , 2012.

6. The trial court, on 30.03.2022, framed charge under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012, against the present appellant. When the said charge was read over and explained to him, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. To bring home the charge against the present appellant, the prosecution side examined 10 witnesses including the first informant as well as the victim boy. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 during which he denied the truthfulness of the testimony of prosecution witnesses and declined to give any clarification in his defence. However,