CourtKutchehry

Supreme Court: Touching Minor’s Private Parts Without Penetration Not Rape Under IPC or POCSO

Court reduces 20-year sentence to lesser terms for outraging modesty and non-penetrative sexual assault

Judges clarify difference between penetrative and non-penetrative acts under child protection laws

By Our Legal Reporter

New Delhi, September 18, 2025:
In a significant interpretation of India’s sexual offence laws, the Supreme Court has ruled that touching the private parts of a minor without penetration does not amount to rape or penetrative sexual assault under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

The judgment, delivered by a bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Joymalya Bagchi, came in the case of Laxman Jangde vs State of Chhattisgarh. The Court modified the convict’s sentence from 20 years of rigorous imprisonment for rape and penetrative sexual assault to five years under Section 354 IPC (outraging modesty) and seven years under Section 10 POCSO (aggravated sexual assault).

Case Background

The case originated from a July 2022 trial court judgment in Chhattisgarh, which found Laxman Jangde guilty under Section 376AB IPC (rape of a child under 12) and Section 6 POCSO (aggravated penetrative sexual assault). The court sentenced him to 20 years in prison and imposed a fine of ₹50,000.

The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the conviction in January 2025. Jangde then appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the evidence did not prove penetration—a key element for the offences he was convicted of.

Supreme Court’s Observations

After reviewing the First Information Report (FIR), the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC, her deposition during trial, and witness testimonies, the bench concluded that:

“The direct allegation is of touching the private parts of the victim and, at the same time, the appellant touching his own private organs. Such allegations do not satisfy the ingredients of Section 375 IPC (rape) or Section 3(c) POCSO (penetrative sexual assault).”

The Court noted that no medical evidence supported penetration, and the victim’s statements—given on three separate occasions—were consistent in alleging only touching, not penetration.

Legal Reasoning

Under Section 375 IPC, rape requires proof of penetration, however slight. Similarly, Section 3 of the POCSO Act defines penetrative sexual assault as involving penetration of the penis, any object, or body part into the vagina, mouth, urethra, or anus of a child.

The Court held that non-penetrative acts, while still serious offences, fall under different provisions:

Section 354 IPC – Assault or criminal force to a woman with intent to outrage her modesty.
Section 9(m) POCSO – Aggravated sexual assault on a child below 12 years.

By reclassifying the offence, the Court reduced the sentence to five years under IPC and seven years under POCSO, to run concurrently. The ₹50,000 fine was retained, to be paid to the victim as compensation within two months.

Arguments from Both Sides

Defence Counsel’s Stand:

The allegations never mentioned penetration.
The victim’s consistent statements and the absence of medical evidence supported a lesser charge.
The appellant had already spent over five and a half years in custody.

State Counsel’s Stand:

The offence involved a girl under 12, warranting no leniency.
The trial and high courts had correctly applied the law.

Court’s Final Decision

The Supreme Court found substance in the defence’s arguments, stating that the trial and high courts had erred in presuming penetration without evidence.

The bench emphasised that misclassification of offences can lead to disproportionate sentencing and undermine the fairness of the justice system.

Implications of the Judgment

This ruling clarifies the distinction between penetrative and non-penetrative sexual offences under Indian law. Legal experts say it will:

Guide trial courts in accurate application of charges.
Prevent wrongful convictions under more serious provisions without evidence of penetration.
Reinforce the need for medical and testimonial corroboration in sexual offence cases.

However, child rights activists caution that the decision should not be misinterpreted as diminishing the seriousness of non-penetrative acts, which remain punishable with significant prison terms.

Expert Reactions

Criminal law practitioners have welcomed the judgment for its strict adherence to statutory definitions.

“The Court has reaffirmed that sentencing must match the proven offence, not the perceived gravity,” said a senior advocate.

Child protection advocates stress the need for sensitivity in handling such cases, noting that even non-penetrative acts can cause lasting trauma.

POCSO Act: A Brief Overview

Enacted in 2012, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act criminalises a wide range of sexual offences against minors, with stringent punishments. It distinguishes between:

Penetrative Sexual Assault – Requires proof of penetration.
Sexual Assault – Involves physical contact without penetration.
Aggravated Forms – Based on the victim’s age, relationship with the offender, or circumstances.

Key Takeaways from the Judgment

Evidence is Paramount – Courts must rely on clear, corroborated evidence before convicting under penetrative sexual assault provisions.
Legal Definitions Matter – Misapplication of sections can lead to unjust sentencing.
Non-Penetrative Acts Still Punishable – The ruling does not absolve offenders; it ensures correct classification.

Case Details

Case Title: Laxman Jangde vs State of Chhattisgarh
Judgment Date: September 10, 2025
Bench: Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Joymalya Bagchi
Original Conviction: Section 376AB IPC & Section 6 POCSO – 20 years RI
Modified Conviction: Section 354 IPC – 5 years RI; Section 10 POCSO – 7 years RI (concurrent)
Fine: ₹50,000 to victim

In the Court’s words:

“The fidelity of justice lies in matching the punishment to the crime proved, not the crime imagined.”

This decision will likely be cited in future cases where the line between penetrative and non-penetrative acts is contested, shaping the interpretation of sexual offence laws in India.