Orissa HC Affirms Seven-Year Sentence Against Grinder Mechanic for POCSO Sexual Assault on Child Below 12
The Orissa High Court dismissed an appeal against conviction under Sections 452, 354, 354-A IPC and Sections 10 and 12 of the POCSO Act, upholding a seven-year sentence for sexual assault on a child below 12 years of age.
The Orissa High Court at Cuttack has dismissed the criminal appeal of Bablu Verma, a door-to-door grinder mechanic convicted of sexually assaulting a child below 12 years of age at a private residence in Niali on 9 July 2023. Dr. Justice Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, sitting singly, affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 3 April 2025 passed by the ADJ-cum-Special Court under the POCSO Act, Cuttack, in Special G.R. Case No. 115 of 2023. The conviction stands under Sections 452, 354, and 354-A of the IPC read with Sections 10 and 12 of the POCSO Act, carrying rigorous imprisonment of seven years. The High Court found the child victim's testimony consistent and reliable, and declined to interfere with either the findings of guilt or the sentence.
The Incident and Trial Court Proceedings
The prosecution case arose from a written complaint lodged by the victim's mother before the IIC, Niali Police Station. According to the complaint, on 9 July 2023 at around 10:20 a.m., the appellant came to the house of the informant's elder brother-in-law to repair a grinder. While the sister-in-law of the informant went to the kitchen to prepare tea at the appellant's request, the victim and her younger sister were inside the house. The appellant allegedly entered the room, called the victim near him, forcibly kissed her on her cheek and lips, and inserted his hand inside her pant. The victim escaped and hid herself; the appellant fled.
Niali P.S. Case No. 246 of 2023 was registered. The investigating officer, P.W.15, apprehended the appellant on the same day, sent him for medical examination, and got the victim medically examined by P.W.14. The doctor found no external injury on the victim's body. The victim's statement was subsequently recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. A charge-sheet was filed under Sections 452, 376(AB), 354, and 354-A IPC read with Sections 6 and 12 of the POCSO Act.
The trial court, after appreciating oral and documentary evidence, convicted the appellant under Sections 452, 354, and 354-A IPC read with Sections 10 and 12 of the POCSO Act. It acquitted him of the more serious charges under Section 376(AB) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, finding the allegation of penetrative sexual assault unproved. The sentence imposed was rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for each of the principal offences, with the substantive sentences directed to run concurrently. The trial court also awarded compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the victim under Section 357-A Cr.P.C. read with the Odisha Victim Compensation Scheme.
Grounds Urged in the Criminal Appeal
The appellant, represented by Ms. Rita Singh, challenged the conviction on multiple grounds. The central argument was that the prosecution case was riddled with material contradictions and that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the evidence.
On the victim's testimony, the defence pointed to a discrepancy between her court deposition — where she stated she and her sister were watching television — and her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, where she said they were going to play on the swing. The defence argued this cast doubt on whether the victim was present at the spot at all.
On the allegation of finger insertion, the defence contended that this was absent from the Section 164 statement and was introduced as an afterthought during trial. On P.W.3, described as an independent witness, the defence highlighted that her examination-in-chief and cross-examination gave conflicting accounts of whether the accused was present when she returned from the kitchen. The defence also pointed to contradictions between P.W.1 and P.W.2 on how the appellant was located after the incident, and between P.W.2 and P.W.15 on the place of apprehension — P.W.2 stating the appellant was caught at Tampada, P.W.15 stating it was Nuagaon Chhak.
The defence further argued that no Test Identification Parade was conducted, that CCTV footage of the accused's movements was not brought on record, and that P.W.15 had a prior acquaintance with P.W.2, a journalist, rendering the investigation unfair. The appellant also sought leniency on account of his age and family circumstances.
How the High Court Reasoned
Dr. Justice Panigrahi examined the evidence of the victim (P.W.4), the informant (P.W.1), P.W.2, P.W.3, the investigating officer, and the medical evidence before addressing each contention.
Age of the victim. The birth certificate issued by the Registrar of Birth and Death, CMC Niali, recorded the victim's date of birth as 1 November 2014. Since the occurrence took place on 9 July 2023, the Court found no infirmity in the trial court's conclusion that the victim was below 12 years of age on the date of the incident.
Identity of the accused. The victim had consistently referred to the appellant as “Bablu uncle” throughout. P.W.3 had categorically stated that the appellant was known to her as a grinder mechanic who had visited her house on several earlier occasions. The Court held that the absence of a Test Identification Parade did not create doubt about identity where the witnesses were already acquainted with the accused before the occurrence.
The television/swing discrepancy. The Court characterised this as a minor discrepancy not touching the core of the prosecution case. Such variations, the Court observed, are natural in the testimony of a child witness and do not go to the root of the allegations.
Finger insertion allegation. The Court agreed with the trial court that this allegation was absent from the Section 164 statement and was not corroborated by medical evidence, P.W.14 having found no external or internal injury. The trial court was therefore justified in extending the benefit of doubt on the charges under Section 376(AB) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. However, the Court held that this finding did not affect the remaining charges. The victim's consistent account of dragging, kissing, and insertion of hand inside her pant — which remained substantially consistent both in court and in her Section 164 statement — could not be discarded on that basis.
P.W.3's evidence. The Court found that minor inconsistencies in P.W.3's account of whether the accused was present when she returned from the kitchen did not render the prosecution case unreliable. Her evidence that the accused had come to her house for the grinder repair and that she had gone to the kitchen while the victim remained inside was consistent throughout.
Corroboration and immediate disclosure. P.W.1 and P.W.2, though hearsay witnesses as to the actual occurrence, were relevant for the immediate disclosure made by the victim to them shortly after the incident. Their evidence supported the victim's account in that respect.
Unfair investigation allegation. The Court was not persuaded that the prior acquaintance between P.W.2 and P.W.15 tainted the prosecution case. The conviction rested primarily on the consistent testimony of the victim, which the Court found to inspire confidence and to be substantially corroborated by surrounding circumstances.
Legal Analysis: Sexual Assault, House-Trespass, and the POCSO Framework
The Court affirmed the trial court's legal characterisation of the proved acts. Dragging the victim, kissing her, and inserting his hand inside her pant constituted physical contact with sexual intent and fell squarely within the definition of “sexual assault” under Section 7 of the POCSO Act. Given the victim's age, the offence attracted the aggravated sexual assault provision under Section 10 of the POCSO Act. The same conduct also established the ingredients of Sections 354 and 354-A IPC, being acts intended to outrage the modesty of the child and involving unwelcome physical contact and sexual overtures.
On the Section 452 IPC charge, the Court accepted the reasoning that although the appellant had initially entered the premises with permission to repair the grinder in the verandah, his subsequent entry into the room where the victim was present — where he committed the assault — amounted to unauthorised entry with intent to commit an offence, constituting house-trespass punishable under Section 452 IPC.
The Court also noted that the State had correctly submitted before it that the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 could not be extended to the appellant, given that the offences were committed against a minor girl below 12 years of age.
Sentence
The High Court found the sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment, imposed by the trial court for the offences under Section 452 IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act running concurrently, to be neither excessive nor disproportionate so as to warrant interference in appellate jurisdiction. The fine of Rs. 10,000/- in each case, with a default sentence of one month's rigorous imprisonment, was also left undisturbed. The compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- awarded to the victim under Section 357-A Cr.P.C. read with the Odisha Victim Compensation Scheme was affirmed.
Order
CRLA No. 508 of 2025 was dismissed as devoid of merit. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 3 April 2025 passed by the ADJ-cum-Special Court under the POCSO Act, Cuttack in Special G.R. Case No. 115 of 2023 were affirmed in their entirety. Any interim order passed earlier was vacated.