[POCSO Act] Misplaced sympathy for accused will defeat purpose of law: Punjab and Haryana High Court

The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently observed that misplaced sympathy while sentencing persons for offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) would defeat the objective and purpose of the law [Ankit v State of Haryana]..Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj made the observation while confirming the conviction against the petitioners under Section 377 (unnatural offences) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 10 (Aggravated sexual assault) of the POCSO Act..The single-judge took into account the nature of the offence, and the tender age of the victim while refusing accused's request for leniency.“Considering that the victim happens to be a child of only 08 years as on the date of occurrence, his dignity having been violated by sheer brute force, I am not inclined to accept the said submission as well and reject the same.”The High Court was hearing an appeal against the conviction by a trial court imposing a sentence of 2 years imprisonment on the petitioners..The petitioners primarily raised two arguments. One, that the prosecution was not able to establish occurrence of carnal intercourse against the order of nature with the victim and two, necessary ingredients of aggravated sexual assault under Section 10 were not made out since there was no corroborative medical evidence..The High Court rejected these arguments while finding that penetration is not sine qua non (an essential condition) for attracting the penalty of sexual assault.“Any act that would involve touching the private parts/genitalia or primary/secondary sexual characteristics of a child with a sexual intent involving physical contact without penetration would amount to a sexual assault,” the Court held..The Court emphasised that since the charge was of non-penetrative sexual assault, the reliability and admissibility of the statement could not be discredited merely for want of corroboration through medical evidence..In fact, it was held that penetration is not necessary to constitute carnal intercourse, and reading it so would run contrary to legislative intent.“The use of phrase “carnal intercourse” as against “penetrative intercourse” or “sexual intercourse” is a conscious act of the legislature reflecting the clear intent of the legislature to engraft an offence under Section 377 to be separate and different that the offence contemplated against 'sexual intercourse'," the Court said. .The High Court observed that Section 377 could be attracted even in a situation where penetration is on any part of the body of a victim, and only the predominant intent in the commission of the Act had to be sexual..With this, the conviction was upheld and the petitioners’ request for leniency was rejected..Advocate UK Agnihotri appeared for the petitioners. The respondents were represented by the Assistant Advocate General Kanwar Sanjiv Kumar..[Read Judgment]