Corroborated child testimony regarding non-penetrative sexual contact establishes aggravated sexual assault and house-trespass.

The Appellant, a door-to-door grinder mechanic, was accused of entering the house of the informant's sister-in-law on July 9, 2023, where he allegedly kissed the minor victim (born November 1, 2014) and inserted his finger into her vagina

Following an investigation, he was charged under Section 376(AB) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, among others

The Trial Court (ADJ-cum-Special Court, POCSO Act, Cuttack) found the allegations of penetration unproven due to a lack of medical evidence and inconsistencies in the victim’s statements

However, the Trial Court convicted the Appellant on April 3, 2025, for aggravated sexual assault and house-trespass under Sections 452/354/354-A of the IPC and Sections 10 and 12 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment

The Appellant challenged this conviction on grounds of material contradictions and misidentification

1. Whether the prosecution successfully established the identity of the accused and the age of the victim to attract the provisions of the POCSO Act

2. Whether the minor contradictions in the testimony of a child witness and the absence of medical evidence of penetration vitiate the conviction for aggravated sexual assault

3. Whether the act of the Appellant in entering a room to commit an offense after being permitted entry into the verandah for work constitutes house-trespass under Section 452 IPC

The Court applied Section 354 and 354-A of the IPC regarding outraging the modesty of a woman and sexual harassment, and Section 452 of the IPC pertaining to house-trespass after preparation for hurt/assault

It primarily relied on Sections 7 and 11 of the POCSO Act, which define "sexual assault" and "sexual harassment," and Sections 10 and 12, which provide punishment for the "aggravated" forms of these offenses when committed against children

The Court followed the principle that the testimony of a child witness is reliable if it is consistent on core allegations, even if minor natural discrepancies exist

sexual intent can be inferred from physical contact like kissing and improper touching under Section 7 of the POCSO Act

The Court affirmed the victim's age (under 12) based on the municipal birth certificate and upheld the identification of the accused, noting that "Bablu uncle" was previously known to the family, making a Test Identification Parade unnecessary

Regarding the evidence, the Court held that while the Trial Court correctly acquitted the Appellant of rape (Sec. 376(AB) IPC) due to the lack of internal injuries or mention of penetration in the Sec. 164 Cr.P.C. statement, the consistent testimony regarding dragging, kissing, and touching remained credible

The Court reasoned that these acts constituted "sexual assault" under Section 7 of POCSO as they involved physical contact with sexual intent

Furthermore, it determined that the Appellant's movement from the verandah (where he was permitted) into a private room to commit an offense converted his presence into "house-trespass" under Section 452 IPC

It held that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the offenses under Sections 452/354/354-A IPC and Sections 10 and 12 of the POCSO Act

The sentence of seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000 was maintained as proportionate given the victim's age and the nature of the assault

All interim orders were vacated