POCSO Act: Kissing Minor On Lips Can Constitute 'Sexual Assault' If Sexual Intent Is Established: Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court has held that kissing a minor child on the lips can fall within the definition of sexual assault under Section 7 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, provided the requisite sexual intent is established from the facts and circumstances of the case.
Justice Madhu Jain made the observation while dismissing an appeal filed by an accused against his conviction under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)) and Section 10 of the POCSO Act.
The trial court had sentenced him to five years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹5,000 under Section 10 of the POCSO Act.
The High Court clarified that even if the allegation of touching the child’s private parts were excluded from consideration, the allegation that the accused kissed the minor on her lips would still require examination under Section 7 of the POCSO Act.
This provision, apart from the specific acts enumerated therein, also covers "any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration".
The Court observed: "The absence of penetration or the exclusion of the allegation regarding touching of the private part would not, by itself, take the alleged act outside the ambit of Section 7, provided the requisite sexual intent is established from the facts and circumstances of the case."
What was the case all about?
The prosecution case was that the incident took place on April 12, 2020, when the victim was around six years old. According to the prosecution, the accused, who was her neighbour, kissed her on the lips and touched her inappropriately.
The victim’s mother told the police that her daughter had disclosed the incident to her after returning home. The mother then informed her husband, who contacted the police.
During the trial, the child testified that the accused had kissed her on the lips and squeezed the area of her stomach below the breast. She also stated that, apart from these acts, he had not subjected her to any other “bad touch” on that day.
The appellant challenged the conviction, arguing that the child’s testimony contained material inconsistencies and that there was no independent eyewitness or medical or forensic evidence corroborating the alleged acts. The defence also questioned the reliability of the child’s testimony and alleged that she had been tutored.
What did the High Court find?
Rejecting these submissions, the High Court compared the child’s statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC with her testimony before the trial court.
The Court found that she had remained consistent on the material particulars of the incident, including the allegation that the accused kissed her on the lips. It also noted that her immediate disclosure of the incident to her mother was consistent with the mother’s testimony.
"There may be some minor variation in the testimony regarding the precise part of the body touched by the appellant. However, considering the tender age of the victim at the time of the incident, such variation with regard to the precise description of the body part cannot, by itself, be treated as a material contradiction so as to discredit the core of her testimony" the Court held.
The Court added that the material fact remained that the appellant had subjected the minor to inappropriate physical contact and kissed her on the lips.
The High Court reiterated that a conviction can be based solely on a victim’s testimony if the evidence is consistent and inspires confidence.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balveer Singh (2025), the Court discussed the principles governing the assessment of evidence given by child witnesses.
It noted that a child witness is competent to testify if the child understands the questions put to her and can provide coherent and rational answers. There is no general requirement that a child witness’s testimony must be corroborated before it can form the basis of a conviction.
However, the Court noted that a child’s evidence must be carefully scrutinised, and corroboration may be sought as a matter of caution where the testimony appears tutored or contains material discrepancies or contradictions.
In the present case, the High Court noted that the trial court had assessed the child’s ability to understand and answer questions. Although the defence had suggested that she was tutored, the Court found that the allegation had not been established and that no material contradiction had been shown to render her testimony untrustworthy.
"In view of the foregoing, the testimony of the victim is consistent and inspires confidence. The minor variations do not constitute material contradictions, and the allegation of tutoring has not been established" the Court concluded.
Finding no ground to interfere with the trial court’s judgment dated April 13, 2026, or its order on sentence dated April 20, 2026, the High Court dismissed the appeal and directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the trial court for information and compliance.
Case title : SURAJ SINGH @ LAALA v STATE NCT OF DELHI