Conviction modified to attempt to molest where evidence fails to establish completed act of sexual assault.

The Appellant was convicted by the Trial Court on 22.01.2019 for molesting a minor girl.

The prosecution alleged that on 22.08.2018, the Appellant first attempted to catch hold of the victim while she was grazing cattle and subsequently followed her home to attempt further molestation.

The victim’s sister-in-law (P.W. 3) intervened and locked the Appellant in a room until villagers arrived.

The Appellant was convicted under Section 354 of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, receiving a sentence of three years R.I.

The Appellant challenged this conviction on the grounds of contradictory witness testimonies and lack of physical injury to the victim.

1. Whether the evidence on record sufficiently established the commission of an offense under Section 8 of the POCSO Act or merely an attempt to molest.

2. Whether the conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court required modification based on the nature of the testimony provided by the victim and eye-witnesses.

The Court considered Section 354 of the IPC (assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty) and Section 8 of the POCSO Act (punishment for sexual assault).

It applied Section 42 of the POCSO Act, which provides that where an act constitutes an offense under both the IPC and POCSO, the offender shall be punished under the Act that provides for the greater degree of punishment.

Crucially, the Court invoked Section 511 of the IPC, which provides punishment for attempting to commit offenses punishable with imprisonment.

The Court observed that while the presence of the Appellant at the scene was established, the testimonies of P.W. 1 (victim) and P.W. 3 (sister-in-law) did not substantiate a completed act of sexual assault or molestation.

P.W. 3 testified that she did not witness the commission of the crime but was informed the accused "tried to catch hold" of the victim.

Furthermore, both the Investigating Officer (P.W. 7) and P.W. 3 confirmed there were no physical injuries on the victim.

The Court reasoned that the evidence, at its highest, only established an "attempt to molest" rather than the completed act required for a conviction under Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

The sentence was modified to the period of imprisonment already undergone by the Appellant (approximately one year). The Appellant was discharged from his bail bonds, and the appeal was disposed of with these modifications.