The Pocso court also imposed a fine of Rs 10,000 and directed that, in default, the accused undergo simple imprisonment for two months. It further directed payment of Rs 5,000 as compensation to the 4-year-old girl
Mumbai: A special POCSO court has sentenced a 50-year-old contractor to five years’ rigorous imprisonment for aggravated sexual assault on a four-year-old girl in March 2025, rejecting his claim that kissing her was an act of affection.
Noting that the girl had, during cross-examination, said that acquaintances would sometimes pick her up, toss her in the air, catch her, kiss her and return her to her mother, the court held that such conduct related to persons known to the child, whereas the accused was a stranger. Observing that the child’s testimony was reliable despite her age and the accused’s explanation “not believable and trustworthy”, the court held that the kiss could not be treated as an act of love or affection.
“The punishment should be a message to the society for prevention of such acts by any person against any minor victim,” the judge said, while also noting the accused’s age, absence of past criminal record and the need to give him an opportunity for reformation. Relying on the eyewitness account and the child’s testimony, the court held that the evidence was “reliable and trustworthy”. The judge said the prosecution had proved that “the accused caught the victim who is below age of 12 years and committed sexual assault on her by kissing or biting her on her cheek and neck and improperly touching her”. “The sexual intent of the accused while committing acts of sexual assault on the victim is proved by this presumption,” the judge said.
The court noted that although the victim was a child witness, her evidence could not be discarded merely on that ground. It observed that while child witnesses may be vulnerable to tutoring or tampering, the victim’s age, the nature of her deposition and the supporting evidence made her testimony reliable.
On the delay in recording statements, the court held that the accused could not benefit from lapses in investigation when the ocular evidence was otherwise credible.