The High Court of Sikkim has affirmed the conviction and five-year prison sentence of a man found guilty of aggravated sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 . In a judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, the court held that performing two separate acts of touching a child’s breasts within a single occurrence is sufficient to meet the statutory threshold for aggravated sexual assault as defined under Section 9(l) of the Act.

The appellant had challenged an earlier ruling by the Special Judge (POCSO), Pakyong , which sentenced him to five years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹2,000, along with a recommendation for ₹15,000 in victim compensation . Represented by legal aid counsel , the appellant argued that discrepancies in the timing of the incident and the testimony regarding the nature of the contact should have warranted a different conclusion. However, the High Court found these arguments insufficient to disturb the conviction, noting that the survivor’s testimony remained consistent and credible throughout the trial and cross-examination .

Establishing Sexual Intent Through Repetition

Central to the court’s decision was the interpretation of " sexual intent " and the definition of aggravated assault. Justice Pradhan emphasized that the repeated physical contact, even within a brief window of time, clearly demonstrated an intentional act of sexual aggression. The judgment noted that the survivor had initially expressed her displeasure and attempted to stop the appellant, yet he persisted in the conduct.

The court observed, “The two separate acts of touching the survivor's breasts by the appellant during the same occurrence establish the ingredients of section 9(l) of the POCSO Act which the prosecution has been able to prove by the evidence of the survivor herself. The testimony of the survivor of repeated sexual assault by the appellant on her establishes the commission of ‘ aggravated sexual assault .’”

The court further highlighted that the appellant’s attempt to offer the survivor money following the incident served as additional evidence reflecting his intent. Under Section 30 of the POCSO Act , the burden of proof shifts to the accused once foundational facts are established; the appellant failed to provide any evidence to demonstrate that his conduct was innocent or lacked a sexual motive.

Consistency of Evidence and Witness Credibility

The appeal also questioned the validity of the survivor’s birth certificate, which was used to establish that she was a minor at the time of the December 2023 incident. The High Court rejected these claims, confirming that the birth certificate is a public document that carries a presumption of correctness . This documentary evidence was further corroborated by the testimony of the survivor’s parents, school records, and official entries from the Registrar of Births and Deaths .

Addressing the defense’s focus on minor discrepancies in the timeline—specifically variations in the reported hour of the incident—the court held that such inconsistencies are natural in cases involving trauma. Justice Pradhan remarked that minor variations do not destroy the core of the prosecution’s case, particularly when the victim’s version of events is consistent with her initial statements made to the magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 .

“The survivor’s deposition was tested before the learned Special Judge which stood firm, cogent and consistent. The narration of the account of the incident was internally consistent. There was no material improvement or contradiction,” the court observed in its ruling.

Minimum Sentencing Requirements

The appellant had requested a reduction in his sentence, citing personal circumstances, including the responsibility of caring for a fifteen-year-old child. However, the High Court declined this request, noting that the sentencing mandate under Section 10 of the POCSO Act establishes a mandatory minimum of five years of rigorous imprisonment for the offence of aggravated sexual assault .

The court stated, “The mandate of section 10 therefore does not permit the learned Special Court to sentence the appellant for a term less than the minimum prescribed i.e. five years. It is noticed that the learned Special Court has sentenced the appellant to the minimum as prescribed by the law.”

By dismissing the appeal, the court effectively upheld the original sentence and the direction for compensation under the Sikkim Compensation to Victims (or their Dependents) Scheme, 2021 . The trial court records are to be remitted to the Court of the Special Judge, Pakyong , for execution of the sentence. The ruling underscores the judiciary’s strict adherence to the protective framework established by the POCSO Act, particularly in ensuring that the testimony of child survivors is treated as primary evidence when it remains unassailable under judicial scrutiny.