{"id":235598,"date":"2021-12-02T16:40:00","date_gmt":"2021-12-02T11:10:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/?p=235598"},"modified":"2021-12-03T12:14:59","modified_gmt":"2021-12-03T06:44:59","slug":"redefining-sexual-assault","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.indialegallive.com\/cover-story-articles\/il-feature-news\/redefining-sexual-assault\/","title":{"rendered":"Redefining Sexual Assault"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
While giving its verdict on a petition filed in a child abuse case, the Allahabad High Court<\/a> has stirred a legal hornet\u2019s nest by declaring that oral sex with a minor is not a heinous offense and reducing the sentence of a man, convicted by the trial court, from 10 years to 7 years.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A single bench of Justice Anil Kumar Ojha passed the order while hearing a criminal appeal filed by petitioner Sonu Kushwaha.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Kushwaha had challenged an order given by a special sessions court in Jhansi wherein he was convicted under IPC Sections 377 (unnatural offences) and 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation) as well as Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years along with fine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A resident of Jhansi district, Dev Singh, had lodged an FIR against Kushwaha, stating that the latter had come to his house and took his son, aged about 10 years, to a temple at Hardaul and there gave his son Rs 20 and asked the boy to suck his penis. Kushwaha then put his penis in the mouth of the boy. Thereafter, the boy returned to the house with Rs 20. On being asked where he got the money from, the boy related the entire incident. He also said that Kushwaha had threatened him not to disclose the incident to anybody.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After a written complaint was filed, a case was registered against Kushwaha under Sections 377 and 506 of the IPC and Section 3\/4 of the POCSO Act at police station Chirgaon, district Jhansi. The case then went to court, and eventually, Additional Sessions Judge\/Special Judge (POCSO Act) convicted and sentenced Kushwaha.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Aggrieved by the judgment, Kushwaha appealed before the Allahabad High Court<\/a>. The counsel for Kushwaha argued that the offence was not applicable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and he had been wrongly convicted under the Section. He further argued that the said offence committed by Kushwaha fell under Section 9(M) of the POCSO Act. The counsel for the state, however, argued that Kushwaha had been rightly convicted and the appeal had no merit and should be dismissed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court noted that all evidence submitted in the case against Kushwaha were cogent, trustworthy, credible, and hence, finding with regard to the conviction was confirmed. The solitary point for consideration was whether the offence under Section 5\/6 of the POCSO Act or Section 9\/10 of the POCSO Act could be made out against Kushwaha from the evidence available on record.<\/p>\n\n\n\n