Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 14448

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Mridul Kumar Kalita, J
Roneihsanga – Appellant
Versus
State of Mizoram – Respondent
CRL.A(J)/1/2024|Sessions Case (K) Case No. 3/2022

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: B. Lalramhnemi
For the Respondents: Mary L. Khiangte, Lalrokunga Pautu

Under Section 3(c) of the POCSO Act, 2012, actual penetration is not required to constitute penetrative sexual assault; the offense is established by demonstrating the manipulation of a child's body part with the intent to cause penetration.

Headnote:(A) POCSO Act, 2012 - Section 3(c), Section 4, Section 6 - Penetrative sexual assault - Definition of manipulation - Intent to penetrate - The court held that under Section 3(c) of the POCSO Act, 2012, actual penetration is not a sine qua non for the offence of penetrative sexual assault; rather, the manipulation of any part of a child's body with the intent to cause penetration constitutes the offence. (Paras 39, 40)

(B) Evidence - Testimony of victim - Corroboration by eyewitness - The victim’s testimony regarding the physical assault, including being restrained and the attempt at anal penetration, if credible and uncontroverted, is sufficient to establish guilt even in the absence of medical evidence of injury. (Paras 41, 43)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted by the trial court for an offence under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012, for attempting to commit penetrative sexual assault on a minor boy. The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that medical evidence did not support a finding of penetration and that there was no reliable eyewitness testimony.

Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the trial court's conviction, finding that the statutory definition of penetrative sexual assault includes the manipulation of a child's body to attempt penetration. Credible testimony from the victim and supporting eyewitness evidence were deemed sufficient to prove the commission of the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

Issues: Whether the lack of medical evidence regarding laceration or fissures precludes a conviction for penetrative sexual assault under Section 3 of the POCSO Act, and whether the appellant’s actions fall within the definition of “manipulation” under Section 3(c).

Ratio Decidendi: Application of Section 3(c) does not require successful penetration. The act of holding, restraining, and attempting to insert a male organ into a child's body constitutes "manipulation" with the intent to cause penetration, thereby satisfying the elements of the offence regardless of the absence of external injury.

Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld.

Table of Content
1. overview of judicial proceedings and facts leading to conviction under pocso act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. assessment of witness testimonies, medical reports, and evidentiary record. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22)
3. legal arguments regarding the definition of penetrative sexual assault and sufficiency of evidence. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 33 , 34)
4. interpretation of section 3(c) pocso act defining manipulation for penetrative assault. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)
5. final confirmation of conviction and directions for victim compensation. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48)

2: Shri Seltawn, Saron Veng, Bilkhawthlir, Mizoram BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA For the Appellant : Ms. B. Lalramhnemi, Amicus Curiae.

For the Respondents : Ms. Mary L. Khiangte, Addl. P.P., Mizoram : Mr. Lalrokunga Pautu, Legal-Aid-counsel (for respondent No. 2)

Date of Hearing : 28.04.2026 Date of Judgment : 30.04.2026 JUDGMENT & ORDER

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 POCSO Act, 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Gau) 14448

GAUHATI HIGH COURTMridul Kumar Kalita, JRoneihsanga – AppellantVersusState of Mizoram – RespondentCRL.A(J)/1/2024|Sessions Case (K) Case No. 3/2022

Under Section 3(c) of the POCSO Act, 2012, actual penetration is not required to constitute penetrative sexual assault; the offense is established by demonstrating the manipulation of a child's body part with the intent to cause penetration.

GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Mridul Kumar Kalita, J
Roneihsanga – Appellant
Versus
State of Mizoram – Respondent
CRL.A(J)/1/2024|Sessions Case (K) Case No. 3/2022