Delhi High Court: A criminal revision petition was filed by the petitioner, a minor (MRP) under Section 438 read with Section 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), challenging the order dated 30-07-2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge in an FIR under Section 354 of Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) registered at Police Station Okhla Industrial Area, Delhi, based on allegations of inappropriate contact with a minor girl by her paternal uncle. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., modified the impugned order by upholding the charge under Section 354 of IPC while setting aside the charge under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, holding that the allegations did not establish the essential ingredient of sexual intent required for aggravated sexual assault.
On 01-03-2024, the in-charge of Udyan Ghar for Girls, accompanied by the victim and an order from the Child Welfare Committee (CWC), approached the police station to report alleged inappropriate conduct by the victim’s paternal uncle, the petitioner herein. The victim alleged that while staying at her home in Okhla during her winter vacation, the petitioner had touched and pressed her lips. Additionally, she stated that he would lie down next to her when no one else was present, causing her discomfort.
Following the victim’s statement, an FIR was registered for offences under Section 354 of IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act. The victim was subsequently medically examined, and her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC. After completing the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet against the petitioner. The Trial Court, upon consideration of the evidence, framed charges under both provisions, leading to the present revision petition.
The Court first examined whether the allegations satisfied the legal criteria for an offence under Section 354 of IPC. It referred to precedents, including Rupan Deol Bajaj v. Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, (1995) 6 SCC 194 and Raju Pandurang Mahale v. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 4 SCC 371 which define modesty, and the intent required under Section 354 IPC. The Court noted that touching and pressing the lips of a minor girl, along with lying next to her in an inappropriate manner, could be construed as an act capable of outraging modesty. Given the victim’s vulnerability and discomfort, the Court held that a prima facie case under Section 354 of IPC was made out.
However, regarding the charge under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, the Court noted that an essential ingredient ‘sexual intent’ in POCSO cases was absent from the victim’s statements. While the victim reported feeling uncomfortable, there was no explicit allegation of sexual intent or overtly sexual conduct by the petitioner. The Court emphasized that mere physical contact, without clear sexual intent, would not meet the threshold required under Section 10 of the POCSO Act. Therefore, it concluded that no prima facie case for aggravated sexual assault was established.
The Court remarked that “the absence of even the slightest indication of a sexually motivated advance in the statements of the victim negates the foundational requirement of ‘sexual intent’, which is an essential element of an offence under Section 10 of POCSO Act. The act of touching and pressing lips or lying down next to the victim, though may result in violation of a woman‘s dignity and lead to outraging of her modesty, but absent any overt or inferred sexual intent, the said acts would fall short of meeting the legal threshold required to sustain a charge under Section 10 of POCSO Act.”
The Court also criticized the Trial Court’s impugned order for being non-speaking and unreasoned. It emphasized that orders framing charges, especially in cases involving serious offences, must provide at least minimal reasoning to demonstrate judicial application of mind. The Court expressed concern over a recurring trend of trial courts passing cryptic and mechanical orders on charge without engaging with the arguments presented by both parties.
The Court partially allowed the revision petition and upheld the charge under Section 354 of IPC, it set aside the charge under Section 10 of the POCSO Act.
[MRP v. State, CRL. REV. P. 1098/2024, decided on 24-02-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Ms. Amrita Jaiswal, Advocate for petitioner
Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State with W/SI Sunil Complainant in person alongwith Counsel (appearance not given)
Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
