Injury is not a sine qua non to establish the offense as defined under Section 7 of the POCSO Act : Tripura High Court
The Tripura High Court in the case of Sri Setu Ghosh vs The State Of Tripura (Crl. A. 3 of 2021) upheld that injury is not a sine qua non to establish the offense as defined under Section 7 of the POCSO Act.
Facts of the case : The appellant had been convicted under Section 8 of POCSO Act and was sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for three years.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that, on the fateful date and time the victim was taken by the appellant to his nearby house. After they entered the room the appellant had closed all the doors and the windows of the room. In the complaint it is stated that inside the room the daughter of the complainant was sexually assaulted by the appellant.The learned Special Judge taking cognizance of the offence had framed charges against the appellant under Section 8 of the POCSO Act 2012, and under Sections 341 / 376 AB read with Section 511 of IPC.
Counsel for the appellant had submitted that the medical report did not support the case of the prosecution that the victim girl was sexually assaulted, as defined under Section 7 of the POCSO Act.
Judgment : The court held that injury is not a sine qua non to establish the offense as defined under Section 7 of the POCSO Act. Section 29 of the POCSO Act clearly contemplates the initial presumption in favor of the guilt of the accused and the burden lies upon the accused to remove such presumption. Appeal was hence dismissed.
JUDGMENT REVIEWED BY : SHUBHANGI CHAUDHARY