Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India dismissed an appeal filed by an accused challenging his conviction and life imprisonment for offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The case originated from an incident on June 17, 2016, where the accused, a neighbor, lured a four-year-old girl into bushes, disrobed her, and penetrated her vagina with his finger, causing pain and redness, before being caught red-handed by locals. The prosecution relied on the testimony of PW10 Dr. Vandana Sundriyal, who medically examined the victim and recorded her narration of the event. The Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 376(2)(i) of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, imposing life imprisonment and a fine, which the High Court upheld. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the act constituted at most sexual assault under Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act due to lack of penetration, and that life imprisonment was disproportionate given his age. The State contended that it was penetrative sexual assault under Section 3(b), aggravated under Section 5(m) as the victim was below twelve, warranting Section 6 punishment. The Court analyzed the evidence, noting concurrent findings by lower courts and the credibility of PW10 as an independent witness. It referred to Section 3(b) of the POCSO Act, which defines penetrative sexual assault as insertion of any body part into the vagina, and Section 5(m), which aggravates it for victims below twelve. The Court held that the finger penetration constituted penetrative sexual assault, aggravated due to the victim's age, thus falling under Section 6. It rejected the accused's arguments on lack of penetration and proportionality of sentence, emphasizing the seriousness of the offence against a young child and the objectives of the POCSO Act. The appeal was dismissed, confirming the conviction and life imprisonment.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Sexual Offences - Penetrative Sexual Assault - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Sections 3(b), 5(m), 6 - Accused inserted finger into vagina of four-year-old victim, causing pain and redness - Court held this constituted penetrative sexual assault under Section 3(b) and, as victim was below twelve years, aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 5(m) punishable under Section 6 - Conviction and life imprisonment upheld based on medical evidence (Paras 7-8). B) Criminal Law - Evidence - Witness Testimony - Independent Medical Witness - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Prosecution case relied on testimony of PW10 Dr. Vandana Sundriyal, who examined victim and recorded incident - Court found her independent and credible, with no allegations of enmity, and upheld conviction based on her deposition despite other witnesses not supporting prosecution - Held that such testimony can sustain conviction (Paras 7-7.1). C) Criminal Law - Sentencing - Life Imprisonment - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 6 - Accused, aged 65 at time of incident, argued life sentence was harsh and disproportionate - Court rejected plea, emphasizing gravity of offence on a four-year-old and object of POCSO Act - Held that no leniency should be shown, and life imprisonment was warranted (Paras 4.5, 5.2, 7.1).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the accused's actions constituted penetrative sexual assault under Section 3(b) of the POCSO Act, 2012, and aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Section 5(m) thereof, warranting conviction under Section 6 and life imprisonment, or whether it was merely sexual assault under Section 7/8 due to lack of penetration
Final Decision
Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upheld the conviction of the accused under Section 376(2)(i) IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act, and confirmed the sentence of life imprisonment and fine of Rs.50,000 with Rs.30,000 as compensation to victim
Law Points
- Penetrative sexual assault under POCSO Act includes insertion of any body part into vagina
- aggravated penetrative sexual assault applies when victim is below twelve years
- concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are binding unless perverse
- independent medical witness testimony can sustain conviction
- life imprisonment is appropriate for aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a four-year-old
