Latest JudgementCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Madhu Shudhan Dutto v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi, 2026

It reinforces strict statutory interpretation of “penetration” under Section 3 POCSO.

Delhi High Court·16 January 2026

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Court

Delhi High Court

Date of Decision

16 January 2026

Judges

Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Facts of the Case

Incident occurred in 2016, where the appellant, a doctor, was alleged to have sexually assaulted a 9-year-old girl in his clinic.
Trial court convicted the appellant under POCSO Section 6 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) and IPC Section 342 (wrongful confinement), sentencing him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment for Section 6.
Evidence included the testimony of the child victim and her mother, and the first information statement (FIS).
No proof of penile penetration was present in the FIS or Section 164 statement.
The High Court examined whether rubbing genitalia without penetration constitutes penetrative sexual assault under Section 3 POCSO.

Whether rubbing of a male genital against a child’s genital, without proof of penetration, constitutes “penetrative sexual assault” under Section 3 of POCSO Act?
Whether the conviction under Section 6 POCSO Act is maintainable when penetration is not established?
Whether the act can be prosecuted under Section 9(m) POCSO Act as aggravated sexual assault (non-penetrative)?
Whether the sentence imposed under Section 6 can be modified in view of the nature of assault and statutory interpretation of POCSO provisions?
Whether the conviction under IPC Section 342 (wrongful confinement) is independent of the POCSO conviction?

Penile rubbing without penetration does not amount to penetrative sexual assault (Section 3 POCSO).
Conviction under Section 6 POCSO is set aside; substituted with Section 9(m) POCSO.
Sentence reduced from 10 years to 7 years for POCSO offence.
IPC Section 342 conviction upheld.

Reinforces strict statutory interpretation of “penetration” under Section 3 POCSO.
Clarifies the distinction between penetrative and non-penetrative sexual assault.
Ensures that victims are protected under POCSO, even if full penetration is absent.
Reflects a balanced approach: upholding protection for child victims while adhering to statutory definitions.
Affirms judicial discretion to modify sentence and conviction based on nature of offence.