Sexual Intent, Not Skin Contact, Is Key Under POCSO: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has upheld the conviction of a man for sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and for outraging the modesty of a minor girl, holding that physical contact with sexual intent, irrespective of skin-to-skin contact, squarely constitutes an offence under the statute.

A single judge bench of Justice Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi dismissed the criminal appeal and affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding that the prosecution had proved the offences under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt and that no interference was warranted with the conviction and sentence.

The case arose from an incident dated 26.08.2021, where the minor victim, aged about 17 years and 5 months, was travelling in a bus when the accused approached from outside and inserted his hand through the window to press her breast.

Upon her raising alarm, her father attempted to apprehend the accused, who fled after a brief altercation. Based on the complaint, an FIR was registered and investigation was undertaken.

Upon completion of investigation, charges were framed under Sections 354 and 392 IPC read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

The trial court, after evaluating the evidence, convicted the accused under Section 354 IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, while acquitting him of the offence under Section 392 IPC.

He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years along with a fine.

Before the High Court, the appellant challenged the conviction on the ground of alleged contradictions in the prosecution case, lack of independent witnesses, and improbability of the incident.

It was also argued that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential ingredient of “sexual intent” and that the identification of the accused was doubtful.

The High Court rejected these submissions, noting that the age of the victim stood conclusively established through documentary evidence such as school records, which carry a presumption of correctness unless rebutted.

The Court found no material to discredit such evidence and affirmed the finding that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident.

On the scope of sexual assault under the POCSO Act, the Court held that Section 7 clearly includes acts involving physical contact with sexual intent, even without penetration.

It observed that pressing the breast of a minor is inherently an act with sexual connotation and falls within the statutory definition of sexual assault.

Rejecting the contention regarding absence of skin-to-skin contact, the Court reiterated that such a narrow interpretation would defeat the object of the POCSO Act, which is to protect children from sexual abuse.

The emphasis, it held, is on sexual intent rather than the manner of contact.

With respect to the offence under Section 354 IPC, the Court observed that the act of reaching through a bus window and touching the breast of a minor clearly demonstrated intent to outrage her modesty and amounted to a direct invasion of her bodily integrity.

The Court further held that the testimony of the victim, if found credible, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. In the present case, the victim’s testimony was found to be consistent, reliable and trustworthy.

It was further corroborated by surrounding circumstances and the immediate reaction following the incident.

Addressing the issue of hostile witnesses, the Court observed that their evidence is not to be discarded in toto and can be relied upon to the extent it supports the prosecution case.

The evidence on record, including that of the bus staff and other witnesses, lent assurance to the version of the victim.

On an overall appreciation of the evidence, the Court concluded that the prosecution had successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It found that the trial court’s findings were based on cogent reasoning and did not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference.

Accordingly, the criminal appeal was dismissed and the conviction and sentence were affirmed.

Case Title: Abinash Digal @ Papun Digal v. State of Odisha

Bench: Justice Sanjeeb K. Panigrahi

Date of Judgment: 27.02.2026