HC upholds conviction of three juveniles for unnatural sex with 8-yr-old boy

The Punjab and Haryana high court has upheld the conviction of three Haryana juveniles for unnatural sex with an eight-year-old boy in Sonepat in 2018

The Punjab and Haryana high court has upheld the conviction of three Haryana juveniles for unnatural sex with an eight-year-old boy in Sonepat in 2018.

The FIR was registered on September 15, 2018 on allegations that the trio overpowered the minor and committed unnatural act. (Getty Images)

The high court bench of justice Vinod S Bhardwaj upheld the principal magistrate, Juvenile Justice Board, Sonepat decision of awarding two-year jail term to each of the convict and also refused to have a lenient view.

The FIR was registered on September 15, 2018 on allegations that the trio overpowered the minor and committed unnatural act. They were convicted in March 2021 and the decision was upheld by additional district and sessions judge, fast track court, Sonepat in December 2021.

It was against this order, that the trio had approached high court arguing that order was perverse as allegations are not substantiated by the evidence available on record. They had relied on the statement of a doctor who had deposed that he did not find any external injuries and marks on the victim.

The court observed 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 observed, adding that reliability and admissibility of the statement of the victim cannot discredited merely for want of corroboration through medical evidence especially when the charge is of a non-penetrative sexual assault.

The court further said Section 377 (sodomy) of the Indian Penal Code cannot be restricted by use of the word “penetrative intercourse” when the same has not been specified in the statutory provision.

“...Section 377 can be attracted even in a situation where the penetration happens to be on any other part of the body of a victim, the predominant intent in the commission of the act, however, has to be sexual,” the court said, rejecting the argument that conviction is bad for want of any external mark of injury around the body of the victim.