The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently ruled that the action of taking a 6-year-old child into a secluded room, placing her on one's lap, and rubbing her thigh signifies the sexual intent of the accused, thus qualifying as an offense under the POCSO Act.

Justice Prem Narayan Singh, leading the bench, underscored that while the definition of 'outraging of female modesty' is not explicitly outlined, the core of a woman's modesty lies in her gender, and the crucial aspect of the case revolves around the culpable intention of the appellant.

The Court also emphasized that while a woman's reaction is important, its absence may not always be determinative. This principle gains even greater importance in the case of a 6-year-old child, where the actions and behaviour of the accused become crucial factors in determining intent.

These observations were made by the single judge while affirming a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanpura, which had convicted the accused for the offense punishable under Section 363 of the IPC and Section 9(M)/10 of the POCSO Act. The accused was sentenced to undergo 5 years of rigorous imprisonment.

According to the prosecution's case, on January 31, 2020, the mother of a 6-year-old girl, identified as the victim, filed a police report against the accused, alleging that he abducted her daughter and took her to his residence. The report further stated that the accused touched the victim inappropriately with the intention of outraging her modesty.

Challenging his conviction, the accused primarily argued before the High Court that the Trial Court had not adequately considered the age of the victim and that the prosecution had failed to establish any sexual assault intentions on his part.

At the outset, the Court considered the scholar's registers and the admission card to ascertain that there was ample evidence confirming that at the time of the incident, the victim was indeed only 6 years old.

Furthermore, addressing the accused's argument that mere touching or rubbing of the thigh does not necessarily imply a presumption of sexual intention, the Court noted that the appellant failed to refute the assertion regarding the rubbing of hands on the victim's thigh.

The Court further elaborated that the accused's actions of taking the victim to a secluded room, placing her on his lap, and then proceeding to rub her thigh were significant indicators of his sexual intention. Therefore, the argument put forth by the appellant's counsel regarding the absence of sexual intention was deemed unsubstantiated.

Concluding that the appellant had employed criminal force against the child with the intent to outrage her modesty, the Court determined that the accused was liable for conviction under Section 9(m)/10 of the POCSO Act. Therefore, there was no necessity for him to be additionally punished under Section 354 of the IPC.

Regarding the offense punishable under Section 363 of the IPC, the Court observed that it was adequately established that the accused had taken the minor child, the prosecutrix, into his closed room. Consequently, the offense under Section 363 of the IPC was deemed proven. In light of these circumstances and affirming the trial court's findings regarding the offenses punishable under Section 363 of the IPC and Section 9(M)/10 of the POCSO Act, the Court upheld the sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment imposed upon the accused.

Case title - PRAHALAD GUJAR vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH