Back
Rules Placing Vibrating Device on Minors Genitals Constitutes Offense
In a significant verdict, the of Kerala at Ernakulam affirmed the of a former cosmetology manager for the sexual assault of a minor. Justice A. Badharudeen, presiding over the case, clarified that the use of a vibrating instrument during a sexual act constitutes "" under the and qualifies as under the .
Case Background
The incident occurred in at a treatment center in Kaloor, operated by the second accused. The prosecution alleged that the first accused, Joshy K.J., misused his authority as manager to isolate the minor victim in a treatment room. Under the guise of a procedure, he forced the minor to lie on a bed, where he used a vibrating machine modified with a penis-like attachment against her genital area. Despite the victim’s resistance and subsequent threats from the accused to ensure her silence, the case eventually came to light after the second accused was arrested in a separate matter.
Legal Arguments
The appellant challenged the judgment, citing an inordinate two-year delay in filing the (FIR) and the absence of direct medical evidence. The defense argued that the victim’s testimony lacked scientific corroboration and that the charge of penetration was inconsistent with her early statements to the police. Conversely, the State argued that the delay was a result of the extreme fear the victim felt due to the influence of the accused. The rejected the appellant’s contentions, noting that the victim's vulnerable state and the power dynamics at play provided a justifiable explanation for the delayed report.
Legal Analysis
The Court conducted a meticulous analysis of the definition of "." Under and , the insertion of any object, to any extent, into the vagina or anus of a child is strictly prohibited. The Court observed that the act of pressing a device in a "vibrating mode" against the vaginal opening is legally equivalent to penetration.
Key Observations
Highlighting the gravity of the offense, Justice A. Badharudeen stated:
“Placing a vibrating machine on the orifice of the vagina viz., labia majora, or vulva, by itself would be sufficient to find insertion... The same is sufficient to hold that a person committed .”
Further emphasizing the consistency of the victim's testimony following a , the Court noted:
“The victim’s statement remained unshaken despite minor contradictions and she had explained why she did not disclose about the pressing of vibrator for some time or the feeling of discomfort.”
Court’s Decision
The dismissed the appeal, confirming the ten-year term imposed by the . The Court held that since the had already awarded the mandated by the POCSO Act, no room remained for further leniency or reduction. The ruling sends a clear message regarding the interpretation of modern sexual offenses and ensures that the protections afforded to children under the law are rigorously enforced.
