Summary
The appellant challenged convictions arising from sexual assault on a four-year-old neighbour, arguing that the conduct was only an attempt or nonpenetrative assault. The Court accepted the medical witness’s evidence and found finger penetration proved, attracting aggravated penetrative sexual assault. Convictions were upheld, but the life sentence was reduced to fifteen years’ rigorous imprisonment under the law applicable at the offence date, considering advanced age and reported tuberculosis. Fine and compensation remained.
Issues
- Whether the proved finger penetration amounted to aggravated penetrative sexual assault rather than an attempt or nonpenetrative assault.
- Whether the life sentence should be modified under the punishment provision applicable when the offence occurred.
Provisions considered
- Sections 3(b), 5(m) and 6, as applicable in 2016, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012Finger penetration was penetrative sexual assault; the child’s age below twelve made it aggravated. The pre-amendment punishment range governed sentencing. (¶¶ 7-8, 10.1-11)
Held
- The independent doctor recorded the child’s account and found corroborating redness and swelling. The Court found no reason to disbelieve that evidence despite other witnesses failing to support the prosecution, and sustained the finding that finger penetration occurred. (¶ 7)
- Penetration to any extent by a body part other than the penis falls within Section 3(b). Because the child was four, Section 5(m) made the offence aggravated penetrative sexual assault punishable under Section 6. It was not reduced to Section 7/8 or an attempt. (¶ 7.1-8)
- The offence betrayed the trust owed by a neighbour and called for serious punishment. Nevertheless the applicable pre-2019 Section 6 allowed a range from ten years’ rigorous imprisonment to life. The appellant’s reported age of seventy to seventy-five and tuberculosis justified substitution of fifteen years’ rigorous imprisonment in this case. (¶ 9-10.1)
- The convictions under Section 376(2)(i) IPC and the POCSO provisions were upheld. Only imprisonment was modified; the Rs.50,000 fine and direction to pay Rs.30,000 from it to the child as compensation remained. (¶¶ 2.1, 11)
Result
Appeal partly allowed on sentence. Convictions upheld; life imprisonment converted to fifteen years’ rigorous imprisonment. Fine and victim-compensation directions retained.