POCSO | Touching Minor's Shoulder And Exposing Private Parts Is 'Sexual Assault': Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction of a man under the POCSO Act for approaching his minor niece while she was lying on the bed, touching her shoulder and exposing his private parts to her, holding that his conduct showed clear sexual intent and amounted to 'sexual assault' under Section 7.

Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha was hearing an appeal filed by Ram Pravesh Thakur against his conviction by the Patiala House Courts.

Thakur had been convicted under Sections 10 and 12 of the POCSO Act and Sections 354 and 354B of the Indian Penal Code.

The trial court had sentenced him to five years' simple imprisonment with a fine of ₹5,000 under Section 10 of the POCSO Act and two years' simple imprisonment with a fine of ₹3,000 under Section 12.

The prosecution case was that on April 3, 2022, between 3:30 PM and 4 PM, Thakur, who was staying at the minor's house, approached her when she was alone. According to her FIR, he grabbed her shoulder and told her, "nothing will happen to you", before opening the zip of his pants and exposing his penis. Her brother subsequently entered the room, after which she disclosed the incident to him and her family.

In her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, the minor stated that Thakur initially touched her arm and then proceeded to open the zip of his pants and tried to remove her clothes. Her brother entered the room during the incident.

Before the High Court, Thakur claimed that he had been falsely implicated because he was demanding repayment of a ₹50,000 loan allegedly given to the minor's mother. He also argued that the incident was improbable as it occurred on a Sunday, when family members would ordinarily have been at home.

The High Court rejected these submissions.

The Court noted that the minor's account was corroborated by her brother, who testified that he returned home and saw Thakur with his hand on his sister's shoulder and the zip of his pants open. The Court found that the evidence disclosed "no substantial inconsistency or infirmity" in the testimony of the minor and her brother.

The Court also rejected the accused side's theory concerning the alleged loan. According to Thakur's own version, he had gone to the railway station intending to return home but deliberately did not board his train and instead returned to the family's house because he wanted the alleged loan to be repaid.

The Court questioned this conduct, observing: "If his intention in coming and staying in the house of PW2 was to get the loan amount back, what was the necessity to enact a drama of going to the railway station and pretending to catch a train back home?"

It added that it appeared he had "other intentions of deliberately missing the train and returning to the house of PW1."

On the central issue of sexual intent, the High Court held: "The act of the accused approaching PW1 while she was lying on the bed, placing his hand on her shoulder and then unzipping his pants and exhibiting himself to her shows that his intention was certainly sexual."

The Court held that the conduct fell within Section 7 of the POCSO Act, describing it as an act "with sexual intent which includes physical contact without penetration". It further held that exhibiting a part of the body with the intention that it be seen by the prosecutrix attracted Section 11(i) of the POCSO Act.

The Court also held that Thakur's act of undressing himself and attempting to undress the minor attracted the ingredients of Sections 354 and 354B IPC.

Finding no ground to interfere with the conviction, Justice Sudha dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction.

Case Title: RAM PRAVESH THAKUR v STATE OF N.C.T. OF DELHI