LI Network
Published on: 11 September 2023 at 11:05 IST
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has confirmed the conviction of an individual under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act), stating that pulling a girl’s clothes and placing a hand on her shoulder demonstrates sexual intent.
In the case of Nageshwar v State, Justice Prem Narayan Singh, a single judge, emphasized that any prosecution under the POCSO Act necessitates a culpable mental state on the part of the accused, which the special court should presume in such cases.
Regarding the question of sexual intent, the Court noted that the appellant, who was 22 years old at the time of the incident, pulled the prosecutrix’s clothes and placed his hand on her shoulder. This conduct clearly indicated the appellant’s sexual intent.
Consequently, the Court upheld the appellant’s conviction under Section 354 (outraging modesty) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 7/8 of the POCSO Act. The appellant was sentenced to three years of imprisonment and fined ₹4,000.
The case involved a 9th-grade student who, while returning from her relative’s house, was accosted by the appellant. He grabbed her hand, pulled her clothes, and fled after threatening her when she raised an alarm. Following the investigation and trial, the appellant was found guilty and sentenced by the trial court.
In his appeal to the High Court, the appellant argued that the prosecutrix’s age had not been adequately examined, and there was no evidence of sexual assault on his part.
The High Court, after a thorough examination of the evidence, found that the victim’s statement was corroborated by a witness named Manish and was consistent with the details provided in the FIR. Furthermore, during the victim’s medical examination, a medical officer identified an abrasion on her left hand.
The Court also addressed the age of the prosecutrix, determining that she was under 15 years of age at the time of the incident based on the scholar register.
Although the Court acknowledged minor contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecutrix and other witnesses, it emphasized that such discrepancies would not diminish the credibility of their accounts.
The Court concluded that the testimony of the prosecutrix should be considered that of an injured witness, noting that criminal jurisprudence places significant weight on the evidence of a person injured in an incident, especially in cases of molestation or sexual assault.
In light of these findings, the Court upheld the appellant’s conviction and sentence.
