Sexual Assault under POCSO Act

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Joymalya Bagchi ruled that merely touching the private parts of a minor without penetration does not amount to rape under IPC Section 375/376AB or penetrative sexual assault under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. Instead, it constitutes aggravated sexual assault under Section 9(m) POCSO and outraging modesty under IPC Section 354. 

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of Laxman Jangde v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025). 

What was the Background of Laxman Jangde v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025) Case? 

• The case originated from allegations against Laxman Jangde involving a minor girl below twelve years of age. The appellant was initially charged and convicted by the Trial Court under Section 376AB of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The Trial Court imposed a sentence of twenty years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 50,000, with an additional one year rigorous imprisonment in default of fine payment. 
• The specific allegations, as recorded in the First Information Report, the victim's statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and her trial deposition, were consistent throughout. The victim alleged that the appellant had touched her private parts while simultaneously placing his hand on his own sexual organs. Notably, there was no allegation of any penetrative act beyond this touching. 
• The case proceeded through the judicial hierarchy, with the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur upholding the Trial Court's conviction through its judgment dated 28.01.2025 in Criminal Appeal No. 1434 of 2022. However, following Section 42 of the POCSO Act which provides for alternate punishment, the High Court maintained sentencing only under Section 6 of the POCSO Act. At the time of the Supreme Court appeal, the appellant had already served five and a half years in prison. 
• The matter reached the Supreme Court through Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 10377 of 2025, where the appellant's senior counsel argued that the alleged conduct did not constitute offences under the sections for which he was convicted. The defence contended that the allegations would at most constitute offences under Section 354 of the IPC and Section 9(m) of the POCSO Act, rather than the more serious charges of rape and penetrative sexual assault. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court made several significant observations regarding the legal interpretation and proper application of criminal law provisions in cases involving minors. 
•  The Court observed that the allegations failed to satisfy the essential ingredients of either Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code or Section 3(c) of the POCSO Act. Through careful analysis of the statutory provisions, the Court noted that both rape under the IPC and penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act specifically require penetration as a fundamental element. The Court reproduced the complete text of Section 375 IPC, emphasizing that rape involves penetration of penis, insertion of objects or body parts, manipulation causing penetration, or oral contact with specific body parts. 
•  The Court observed that the presumption of penetrative sexual assault adopted by both the Trial Court and High Court lacked evidentiary support. The medical report did not indicate penetration, nor did the victim's statements recorded on three separate occasions support such a conclusion. The mother's testimony also corroborated only the touching allegation without any reference to penetrative acts. The Court noted the consistency across all statements - the FIR, Section 164 statement, and trial deposition - which uniformly alleged only touching of private parts. 
• The Court observed that the appellant's conduct, as established through evidence, appropriately fell under different statutory provisions. The touching of private parts of a child constitutes sexual assault under Section 7 of the POCSO Act. When the victim is below twelve years of age, such conduct amounts to aggravated sexual assault under Section 9(m) of the POCSO Act. Additionally, such behaviour constitutes an offence under Section 354 of the IPC, which addresses assault or criminal force against women with intent to outrage modesty. 
•  The Court observed that criminal convictions must be based on precise legal definitions rather than presumptions. The distinction between sexual assault and penetrative sexual assault is crucial in determining appropriate charges and sentences. The Court emphasized that while the conduct was certainly criminal and deserving of punishment, it must be classified under the correct legal provisions to ensure justice and proportionate sentencing. 
• The Court observed that the modified conviction warranted revised sentencing. The appropriate punishment for offences under Section 354 IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act would be five years and seven years rigorous imprisonment respectively, to run concurrently. The Court retained the fine amount as compensation for the victim, reflecting restorative justice principles while ensuring the punishment matched the actual offence committed. 

Which key Provisions of the POCSO Act Distinguish Penetrative from Non-Penetrative Sexual Offences? 

• Section 3 - Penetrative Sexual Assault Requires actual penetration of penis into child's vagina, mouth, urethra or anus, or insertion of objects/body parts, or manipulation causing penetration. 
• Section 6 - Punishment for Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault Minimum twenty years rigorous imprisonment, extending to life imprisonment or death penalty, plus fine for victim rehabilitation. 
• Section 7 - Sexual Assault Covers touching vagina, penis, anus or breast of child with sexual intent, or any physical contact without penetration. 
• Section 9(m) - Aggravated Sexual Assault Sexual assault on child below twelve years constitutes aggravated sexual assault due to victim's tender age. 
• Section 10 - Punishment for Aggravated Sexual Assault Five to seven years imprisonment plus fine for aggravated sexual assault offences. 
• Section 42 - Alternate Punishment Prevents double punishment when same act constitutes offences under both IPC and POCSO Act. 

What are the Key Distinctions Highlighted in the Case? 

• Penetrative vs Non-Penetrative Acts: The fundamental distinction between penetrative sexual assault under Section 3 and sexual assault under Section 7 lies in the presence or absence of penetration. Section 3 requires actual penetration, while Section 7 covers touching and physical contact without penetration. 
• Age-Based Aggravation: Section 9(m) specifically makes sexual assault on a child below twelve years an aggravated offence, recognizing the enhanced vulnerability of very young children and prescribing more severe punishment. 
• Punishment Hierarchy: The punishment structure reflects the gravity of offences - penetrative sexual assault carries twenty years to life imprisonment, while aggravated sexual assault (non-penetrative) carries five to seven years imprisonment. 
• Evidence Requirements: Each provision requires specific types of evidence to establish the offence. Penetrative sexual assault typically requires medical evidence of penetration, while sexual assault can be established through testimony regarding inappropriate touching without penetration.