Oral sex with minor not 'aggravated sexual assault' under POCSO: HC

The court said the crime falls in the 'penetrative sexual assault' category

Child Abuse, POCSO
Press Trust of India Allahabad
2 min read Last Updated : Nov 24 2021 | 2:08 AM IST

Reducing the jail term of a man convicted of sexually assaulting a 10-year-old boy, the Allahabad High Court has observed that 'oral sex' with a minor does not come under the 'aggravated sexual assault' category in the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

In the judgment, the court said the crime falls in the 'penetrative sexual assault' category which is punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act.

In 2016, an FIR had been filed in the Jhansi district against a man accusing him of having "oral sex" with the 10-year-old son of the complainant in exchange for Rs 20. The boy had also been threatened with dire consequences if he told anybody about the incident.

Based on the FIR filed four days after the incident, a case had been registered under Section 377 (carnal intercourse against the order of nature) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code and section 3/4 of the POCSO Act.

The convict appealed against the 10-year jail term sentenced by an additional sessions judge/special Judge, POCSO Act, Jhansi. The Allahabad High Court partly allowed the appeal and sentenced the convict to seven years in jail instead of 10 years.

"From the perusal of the provisions of POCSO Act, it is clear that offence committed by appellant neither falls under Section 5/6 of POCSO Act nor under Section 9(M) of POCSO Act because there is 'penetrative sexual assault' in the present case," Justice Anil Kumar Ojha observed.

The crime does not fall in the category of 'aggravated sexual assault' or sexual assault. It comes in the category of 'penetrative sexual assault' which is punishable under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, he said.

"After going through the records and provisions of POCSO Act, I am of the considered opinion that the appellant should be punished under section 4 of POCSO Act because the act done by appellant falls in the category of penetrative sexual assault," the judge said.

(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

Topics :POCSOAllahabad High CourtSexual assault

First Published: Nov 24 2021 | 2:08 AM IST

Next Story