Himachal Pradesh HC Refuses To Suspend 20-Year Sentence Of Man Convicted For Kissing Girl Under 12’s Private Parts

The applicant-appellant sought suspension of the sentence imposed following his conviction under Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹50,000.

The prosecution alleged that, on 11 September 2018, the appellant called the victim, who was under 12 years old, to his house, touched and kissed her breast and private parts, and threatened her against disclosing the incident.

The appellant challenged the victim’s age, the credibility of the prosecution case, the identification of the place of occurrence, the delay in lodging the FIR, the absence of medical corroboration, and the non-examination of the victim’s friend, Chahat.

The High Court considered the application on the trial record and dismissed it.

Section 376(3) IPC was the provision under which the appellant had been convicted and sentenced.

Section 3(d) of the POCSO Act defines penetrative sexual assault to include applying one’s mouth to a child’s penis, vagina, anus or urethra, or making the child do so.

The Court also applied the principles that an undisputed fact need not be proved and that the quality, rather than the quantity, of evidence is material.

The Court considered the victim’s age sufficiently supported at this stage by her mother’s unchallenged testimony and the birth certificate and Pariwar Register, which recorded the same date of birth.

It found the victim’s account consistent and held that the allegation of kissing her private parts fell within Section 3(d) of the POCSO Act.

The Court rejected the other grounds for suspension: the place of occurrence was adequately identified; the FIR had been received by the Magistrate on the date of registration, and the reporting delay was explained by the victim’s distress and fear; the nature of the alleged acts did not require medical corroboration; and Chahat’s non-examination was not fatal, particularly as the appellant could have sought to call her.

The Court treated these matters as insufficient to justify suspension of sentence at that stage.

It dismissed and disposed of the application, clarifying that its observations were confined to deciding that application and did not express an opinion on the merits of the appeal.