Sheikh Rafique Sk. Gulab v. State of Maharashtra, 2025
The Court reaffirmed that POCSO Act protects children in all forms of sexual assault, including inducement or attempted acts.
Judgement Details
Court
Bombay High Court
Date of Decision
4 December 2025
Judges
Justice Nivedita P. Mehta
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
The convict-appellant, a 25-year-old man, approached a 13-year-old girl twice in October 2015 while her parents were away.
-
On the first occasion, he requested a glass of water and offered the girl Rs. 50 to “do the game,” which was later explained by the victim as an invitation to sexual activity.
-
On the second occasion, he repeated the offer and caught hold of her right hand while making the same sexual proposition.
-
The victim pulled her hand away, raised an alarm, and her parents filed an FIR under Sections 354, 354-A IPC, and Section 8 POCSO Act.
-
The trial court in 2019 convicted him and sentenced him to 3 years of rigorous imprisonment under the POCSO Act.
Issues
-
Whether holding a minor girl’s hand, accompanied by an offer of money for sexual favours, constitutes sexual assault under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act?
-
Whether the appellant could claim benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act, given his lack of prior criminal history?
-
Whether minor discrepancies in the victim’s testimony or delay in filing the FIR affect the conviction?
-
Whether Sections 354 and 354-A IPC were also attracted by the conduct?
Judgement
-
The Appeal dismissed by Justice Nivedita P. Mehta.
-
Conviction under Sections 7/8 POCSO Act and Sections 354/354-A IPC affirmed.
-
Benefit of probation denied, considering the seriousness of offences involving sexual assault on a minor.
-
Court highlighted that the act of holding the hand with an accompanying offer of money demonstrates clear sexual intent, fulfilling the ingredients of sexual assault under POCSO.
-
Minor variations in testimony and hearsay from the mother did not vitiate the prosecution’s case.
-
Trial court’s sentencing under Section 8 POCSO Act was appropriate due to its minimum three-year sentence and more stringent nature compared to IPC provisions.
Held
-
Catching hold of a minor’s hand with sexual intent constitutes sexual assault under Section 7/8 POCSO Act.
-
Minor omissions, delays, or inconsistencies in testimony do not affect conviction if the core facts are consistent and clear.
-
Sections 354 and 354-A IPC were also applicable.
-
Probation cannot be granted in offences involving sexual assault of minors due to societal interest and seriousness of the crime.
Analysis
-
The Court reaffirmed that POCSO Act protects children in all forms of sexual assault, including inducement or attempted acts.
-
The victim’s testimony is paramount, especially in cases involving minors.
-
Holding a minor’s hand, when coupled with sexual proposition and inducement, qualifies as sexual assault.
-
Denial of probation underscores the balance between rehabilitation of the offender and societal protection, prioritizing child safety.
-
Clarifies the scope of Sections 7 and 8 POCSO Act to include even minimal physical contact coupled with sexual intent.
-
The judgment strengthens deterrence against attempted sexual assault and inducement of minors.