Touching A Child Invokes Presumption Of Sexual Intent: Himachal Pradesh HC Refuses To Quash POCSO Case
The Himachal Pradesh High Court observed that any act of touching a child triggers a presumption of sexual intent under Section 30 of the Protection Of Children from Sexual Acts, 2012 (POCSO Act), shifting the burden onto the accused to present evidence proving otherwise.
The Court dismissed a Petition seeking to quash the charges under Section 8 of the POCSO Act.
“Where a person touches a child, there is a presumption under Section 30 that it was with sexual intent and the burden lies upon the accused or to prove otherwise”, the Bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed.
Advocates Dinesh Kumar Sharma appeared for the Petitioner and Deputy Advocate General Prashant Sen appeared for the Respondent.
The informant, identified as the Second Respondent, filed a complaint alleging that her grandson (the victim) disclosed an incident involving the Petitioner. According to the victim, during a trip to Baddi in March 2018, the Petitioner assaulted him by pressing his private parts and neck. The Petitioner also threatened the victim, preventing him from disclosing the incident.
Subsequently, an FIR was registered, leading to an investigation by the Police Station. Charges were framed against the Petitioner under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The Petitioner approached the High Court seeking to quash the charges, arguing that they were based on speculation and lacked evidence of a cognizable offence.
The Court noted the victim’s statement explicitly stating the Petitioner pressed his private parts and neck without providing any explanation for such actions. This lack of explanation leads to a prima facie conclusion of sexual intent, supported by the presumption under Section 30.
The Court observed that the trial court rightly framed charges against the Petitioner under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. “The revisional court does not sit in appeal over the order sought to be revised and only examines the legality or regularity of the procedure”, the Court added.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Petition.
Cause Title: Anju Bala v State of Himachal Pradesh
