ORDER

1. This revision has been filed under section 397 read with section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order dated 23.9.2021 passed by learned 23rd Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 in ST No.10/2021 whereby charges for offences punishable under sections 354, 354-A (1) (i), 354-D and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and section 9 (l)(m)/10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, have been framed against the applicant.

2. Learned Senior Counsel has challenged the impugned order framing charges on many grounds. The applicant and the prosecutrix are neighbours and there is enmity between the parties and the applicant had earlier made complaints against the mother of the prosecutrix due to neighbourhood disputes. It is contended, inter alia, that the mother of the minor prosecutrix deliberately refused for her medical examination. It is vehemently contended that there is no ingredients for framing charges under sections 504, 354 and 354D of the IPC. Learned Senior Counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to section 3 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and contends that no ingredients as provided in section 3 of the Act which deals with the penetrative sexual assault, is available with the prosecution. The trial Court has committed error in law in framing charge under section 504 of the IPC against the applicant because even in the charge-sheet offence under section 504 of the IPC was not alleged.

3. Learned Panel Lawyer has vehemently opposed the contentions raised by learned Senior Counsel for the applicant by placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Attorny General for India v. Satish and Another, Criminal Appeal No.1410 of 2021 decided on 18.11.2021.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The allegation against the applicant is that he used to forcibly kiss on the lips of the prosecutrix who is aged about seven years and nine months.

5. In this context, it is appropriate to refer to the decision in the case of Raju Prasad v. State of Sikkim, 2019 SCC OnLine Sikk 4 wherein in paragraph 19 it has been held as follows :

“19. The crucial question is whether forcibly kissing the minor victim a girl child of 11 years of age and hugging her amount to “aggravated sexual assault” as defined in section 9 (m) of the POCSO Act, 2012. Whoever commits sexual assault on a child below 12 years is said to have committed aggravated sexual assault. “Sexual assault” is defined in section 7 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Whoever, with sexual intent touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child or makes the child touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of such person or any other person, or does any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration is said to commit sexual assault. The act of forcibly kissing the minor victim, a child below 12 years of age and hugging her in the back seat of a car in the absence of her guardian by a 27 year old male cannot but be with sexual intent. The act of forcibly kissing and hugging involves physical contact although without penetration. Thus it is cogent that the said act amounts to sexual assault. As the sexual assault was committed on a child below 12 years of age it amounts to aggravated sexual assault as defined under section 9 (m) of the POCSO Act, 2012.”

6. In this context, it is appropriate to refer to the decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Attorney General for India v. Satish reported in AIR 2022 SC 13 wherein a three-Judges Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the expression “sexual intent” used in section 7 of the POCSO Act. It was argued on behalf of the accused in that caes that “sexual intent” having not been explained in section 7, it cannot be confined to any predetermined form or structure and that it would be a question of fact, however, the e