Kiss On Minor’s Lips Can Attract Offence U/S 7 POCSO Even If Private Parts Aren't Touched: Delhi High Court
The Bench held that minor variation in child’s description of body part touched is not a material contradiction; conviction can rest on child witness’s testimony alone if it inspires confidence.
Justice Madhu Jain, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that kissing a minor on the lips can fall within Section 7 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, even if the allegation of touching her private parts is excluded from consideration. Upholding the conviction of a man who kissed his six-year-old neighbour, the Court observed that the provision also covers “any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration”, so the absence of penetration or of touching a private part does not by itself take the act outside its ambit, provided sexual intent is established from the facts and circumstances.
The Court further held that a minor variation in a child victim’s description of the body part touched is not a material contradiction capable of discrediting the core of her testimony, considering her tender age. It referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Balveer Singh 2025 SCC OnLine SC 390, to reiterate that a conviction can rest on a child witness’s testimony alone if it is consistent and inspires confidence, and found that the allegation of tutoring had not been established.
A Bench of Justice Madhu Jain noting that the counsel for the appellant, disputed the allegation that the appellant touched the private part of the victim, observed, “…Even if, for the sake of argument, the said allegation is excluded from consideration, the allegation that the appellant kissed the lips of a minor child would still require examination under Section 7 of the POCSO Act. The said provision, apart from the specific acts enumerated therein, also covers ‘any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration’. Thus, the absence of penetration or the exclusion of the allegation regarding touching of the private part would not, by itself, take the alleged act outside the ambit of Section 7, provided the requisite sexual intent is established from the facts and circumstances of the case”.
“There may be some minor variation in the testimony regarding the precise part of the body touched by the appellant. However, considering the tender age of the victim at the time of the incident, such variation with regard to the precise description of the body part cannot, by itself, be treated as a material contradiction so as to discredit the core of her testimony. The material fact remains that the appellant subjected the minor victim to physical contact of an inappropriate nature and kissed her on the lips…Moreover, since the appellant was a neighbour of the victim and the victim had reposed trust in him, the appellant would be liable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act”, the Bench further noted.
Advocate Nitin Saluja, DHCLSC appeared for the appellant and Meenakshi Dahiya, APP appeared for the respondent.
According to the prosecution, on April 12, 2020, the girl told her mother that a neighbour she called “Laala Chacha” had kissed her on the lips and touched her private parts. Her father called the police that evening. Her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC repeated the allegations.
On April 13, 2026, the trial court at Karkardooma Courts convicted the man under Section 354 IPC and Section 10 POCSO, acquitting him under Section 363 of the IPC. On April 20, 2026, it sentenced him to five years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000.
The appellant argued that in court the child spoke only of a kiss and of her stomach being squeezed, and later disowned her Section 164 statement. He also pointed to differing accounts of the place of occurrence, a parking quarrel with her father the same evening, and the absence of independent witnesses. The State submitted that her version was consistent and corroborated by her parents.
The Court noted that the trial court had satisfied itself that the child understood the questions and gave rational answers. The suggestion of tutoring was not established, and no material contradiction was shown. As the accused was a neighbour whom the child trusted, the Court held he was liable under Section 10.
Cause Title: Suraj Singh @ Laala v. State NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:9071)
Appearances:
Appellant: Nitin Saluja (DHCLSC) and Utsav Singh, Advocates.
Respondent: Meenakshi Dahiya, APP.