Omission of specific POCSO charges remains a curable irregularity absent proof of manifest failure of justice.

The complainant, mother of a minor daughter (aged 3 years, 3 months), entered a relationship with Accused No. 1 (Sanjaybhai) following a divorce

On February 6, 2022, they moved into the house of Accused No. 2 (Patan Vav)

Between February 7 and February 9, 2022, the accused allegedly physically assaulted the victim, and Accused No. 2 was observed touching the victim’s private parts under her leggings

The victim was taken to multiple hospitals; early histories suggested accidental falls, but later medical examinations confirmed multiple bruises and vulval swelling suggestive of sexual assault

The Trial Court convicted both appellants under Sections 323 and 354A of the IPC, and Sections 8 and 10 of the POCSO Act

Accused No. 1 appealed primarily on the grounds that he was never formally charged with POCSO offences

1. Whether the omission to frame specific charges under Section 354A IPC and Sections 8 and 10 of the POCSO Act against Accused No. 1 vitiates his conviction for those offences

2. Whether the physical assault by the appellants was accompanied by "sexual intent" necessary to sustain a conviction under the POCSO Act

3. Whether the conviction of Accused No. 2 was sustainable regardless of inconsistencies in the initial medical histories provided by the complainant

Section 215 of the CrPC, which states that errors or omissions in a charge are not material unless the accused was misled and it occasioned a "failure of justice"

Sections 464 and 465 CrPC, which protect findings from being invalidated due to charge irregularities unless a failure of justice is proved

Section 7 (Sexual Assault) of the POCSO Act

Statutory presumptions under Section 29 (Presumption of certain offences) and Section 30 (Presumption of culpable mental state) of the POCSO Act, which shift the burden to the accused to prove the absence of sexual intent once foundational facts are established

The High Court rejected Accused No. 1's "prejudice" argument, noting that although the formal charge was missing, the accused was fully aware of the allegations throughout the trial

All incriminating medical evidence and allegations of sexual assault were put to him during his Section 313 statement, and he failed to show how he was misled in his defense

The Court found "sexual intent" established by the nature of the injuries (pinching and swelling of the vulva) and the patterns of repeated assault in a domestic setting

Since the foundational facts of physical contact with the private parts were proved, the statutory presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act applied, which the accused failed to rebut

The court highlighted the breach of "fiduciary confidence" by Accused No. 1, who stood in a quasi-parental role

The convictions and sentences passed by the Trial Court (including 5 years RI under Section 10 POCSO Act) were affirmed and both Criminal Appeals (545/2024 and 1042/2024) were dismissed