The Delhi High Court has held that making a small child touch one’s private parts with sexual intent constitutes aggravated sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

Justice Neena Bansal Krishna delivered the ruling while dismissing an appeal filed by a man challenging his conviction under Section 10 of the POCSO Act for flashing his private parts before a girl aged around four years and making her touch them. Under the law, sexual assault on a child below 12 years of age amounts to aggravated sexual assault.

The appellant, who was a tenant in the child’s house, was convicted by a trial court in July 2024 and sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment for an incident that occurred in June 2022.

“Making a small child touch the private part with sexual intent amounts to aggravated sexual assault and therefore, the offence under Section 10 POCSO Act, was established,” the court said.

“There is no merit in the Appeal, which is hereby dismissed along with pending Applications, if any,” it ordered.

In its judgment dated January 5, the High Court rejected the accused’s claim that the survivor had been tutored and that there was no incriminating evidence against him. It held that the core allegation of sexual assault remained consistent in the survivor’s testimonies and that minor variations in expression did not affect her credibility.

The court also observed that counselling by a DCW counsellor, carried out as per legal mandate, could not be termed tutoring, as it was meant to help the survivor, who was three years and 11 months old at the time, cope with trauma.

“The entire narration of the incident, along with the presence of the appellant throughout, especially when the incident was narrated by the child to the mother and also that he himself reached the Police Station, even before the complainant and family did, reflect the truthfulness of the testimony of the child and her mother,” the court said.

The bench further refused to accept the accused’s argument regarding delay in registration of the FIR, holding that the delay had been sufficiently explained and could not be considered fatal. It said it was “natural” for the child’s mother to wait for her husband to return from another city before approaching the police.

Agreeing with the trial court, the High Court noted that sexual abuse of children is rarely reported due to shame, guilt and concerns about family honour, particularly when the abuser is a known person. It added that abuse has become so normalised in society that it is often only when it is perceived as gruesome or serious that families and children speak out.

However, the court set aside the appellant’s conviction and sentence for certain offences, including sexual harassment under the Indian Penal Code, as no charges had been framed for those offences.