The appellant was convicted by the Special Judge (POCSO), Raigarh, for offences under Section 363 IPC and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment and fine. The prosecution case was that on 19 November 2016 the appellant intercepted the 10-year-old victim returning from a shop, gagged her mouth, dragged her to a field, removed her undergarment and began removing his own clothes when a neighbour (PW-4) arrived, causing him to flee. The appellant challenged the conviction on grounds of material contradictions, unproved age, and the submission that the acts, at most, constituted sexual harassment under Section 11 POCSO (punishable under Section 12) and not sexual assault under Section 7.
The High Court, per Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, rejected all contentions. First, the victim's age was conclusively proved by the school register (Ex.P/5) produced by the Headmaster (PW-14); the defence did not effectively challenge the entry. The victim's own testimony and the statutory definition of 'child' (below 18 years) under Section 2(1)(d) POCSO further confirmed the position.
Second, on the interpretation of Section 7 POCSO, the court held that the provision is not limited to its first limb (touching specified sexual parts). Its second limb — "any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration" — is of wide amplitude. Relying on Attorney General for India v. Satish, (2022) 5 SCC 545, the court ruled that an act involving physical contact, if actuated by sexual intent, constitutes sexual assault. The forcible disrobing of the minor victim in the proved circumstances necessarily involved physical interaction and, together with the gagging, dragging to an isolated field and the appellant undressing himself, demonstrated the requisite sexual intent. The absence of evidence of touching the enumerated private parts did not relegate the offence to sexual harassment under Section 11.
The appeal was dismissed. The appellant's bail bond was cancelled; he was directed to surrender within four weeks to serve the sentence.