Sexual-intent touching of a child’s breasts constitutes POCSO sexual assault even without penetration.

The appellant, who was the maternal cousin of the survivor’s mother and her husband, was residing with the 15-year-old survivor while she pursued her education.

On 23 September 2019, the survivor alleged that the appellant took her to his bedroom, undressed her, fondled her breasts and sexually assaulted her.

She later disclosed the incident to her elder sister, who informed their mother.

The mother confronted the appellant, brought the survivor to Shillong, took her for medical examination and lodged an FIR at Nongstoin Police Station.

The appellant was charged under Section 5(n) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”).

The trial court convicted him for the lesser offence under Section 9(n) read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to five years’ rigorous imprisonment, a fine of ₹20,000, and three months’ simple imprisonment in default.

The trial court also recommended ₹1 lakh compensation for the survivor under Section 357A(2) of the CrPC read with Rule 9 of the POCSO Rules, 2020.

The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence before the Meghalaya High Court.

The Court applied Section 7 of the POCSO Act, which defines “sexual assault” as touching the vagina, penis, anus or breast of a child with sexual intent, or any other act involving physical contact without penetration.

Section 9(n) treats aggravated sexual assault by a person who is a relative of the child through blood, adoption, marriage or guardianship as aggravated sexual assault, punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act.

The Court treated credible testimony of the child-survivor, supported by prompt disclosure and corroborative surrounding evidence, as sufficient to sustain conviction.

It further recognised that the absence of injuries or medical findings inconsistent with forceful penetration did not negate proof of non-penetrative sexual assault, particularly where the survivor’s evidence established sexual touching and physical contact.

The Court found the survivor’s account materially established that the appellant took her to his bedroom, undressed her and fondled her breasts with sexual intent.

Although the survivor stated in examination-in-chief that penetration had occurred, she clarified in cross-examination that the appellant had not penetrated her but had lain on top of her; her mother and sister gave evidence consistent with this version.

The Court therefore treated the evidence as proving non-penetrative sexual assault rather than penetrative sexual assault.

The survivor’s prompt disclosure to her sister, followed by communication to her mother, the confrontation of the appellant and the lodging of the FIR, provided corroborative support to her testimony.

The medical evidence showed no injuries on the survivor’s body or private parts, and the doctor stated that forceful penetration would ordinarily produce lacerations or bruising.

The Court held that this evidence was consistent with the finding of non-penetrative sexual assault and did not undermine the survivor’s allegation that the appellant had fondled her breasts.

Since the appellant was her relative and the act involved sexual intent and physical contact without penetration, the ingredients of Section 7 read with Section 9(n) were satisfied.

The trial court had appropriately convicted him for the lesser offence under Section 9(n) read with Section 10 rather than for the originally charged penetrative offence under Sections 5(n) and 6.

The Court also directed that the ₹1 lakh compensation recommended for the child-survivor be disbursed through the Meghalaya State Legal Services Authority.

The Secretary of the District Legal Services Authority, West Khasi Hills, was directed to submit a compliance report within six weeks, and the matter was listed for recording compliance on 13 October 2026.