Madras High Court said that a sexual assault of child will be based on the description of incident as child might not know what sexual assault is

Madras High Court

In this case a petition was filed to set aside the conviction of the person under POCSO Act by the trial court. The court said that the description of the incident will assume the significance of the case as the child might not know what sexual assault is. The case was Manikandan V/S State of Tamil Nadu [CRL.A.No.44 of 2021]. The case was presided by Mr. Justice PN Prakash and Mr. Justice Anand venkatesh.

Facts of the case

  • In this the victim child who was of 6 year old was playing near the temple and the alleged person lewd her that he will give her chocolate and took her inside the temple and took out her inner garments and committed penetrative sexual assault and while doing that he closed her mouth so that no one can hear her and also threatened her to not tell anyone.
  • When she came back home her mother got to know and she filed the complaint against the alleged person. The FIR was registered for offences under Section 5(m) and 6 of the POSCO Act and section 376-AB, 294(b) and 506(I) of IPC against the appellant.
  • The appellant contended that FIR was lodged against him was false as he saw the victim’s mother with another men in a compromised position that’s why she was complaining. But the court said that the statement recorded from the victim will only constitute an offence of sexual assault under section 7 of POCSO Act as there is no proof of penetrative sexual assault. The appellant said that the whole case of the prosecution was unbelievable. It was further submitted that the incident could not take place in public place.


The court said that the victim was 6 year old and does not attained the age of maturity to know what is penetrative sexual assault is but the victim identified the appellant that he was the same person. The court thus found that victim’s statement are reliable. Further victim also said that victim had placed his penis over her vagina. According to Section 3 of the POCSO Act said that it is not necessary that penis should be penetrated in the vagina. After taking all the facts and evidences into the consideration the court refuse to interfere in the conviction provided by the trial court.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”


Click here to your judgment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *