The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed an appeal against the conviction of Shyam Veer under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), holding that penetration to any extent into the anus of a child falls within the statutory definition of penetrative sexual assault.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma delivered the judgment on September 16, 2026, affirming the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. The appellant had been sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and 10 years under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, with both substantive sentences to run concurrently.
Background
The case arose from an incident dated April 27, 2020, during the COVID-19 lockdown. According to the prosecution case, the child was playing outside the appellant’s room when a neighbour saw the appellant take him inside. Around 10 to 15 minutes later, the child came out and was seen walking with difficulty before going towards bushes and cleaning himself.
The child subsequently disclosed the incident to his father. The police were informed shortly thereafter, and an FIR was registered at Police Station Jhakri, District Shimla. The child was medically examined, his statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and samples were collected during the investigation.
The trial court examined 13 prosecution witnesses and convicted the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 377 IPC. The appellant then challenged the conviction before the High Court.Before the High Court, the appellant argued that the prosecution case was not supported by medical evidence because no injury, tear, abrasion or visible sign of penetration was found during the child’s medical examination. He also questioned the credibility of the prosecution witnesses and alleged previous enmity with one of the neighbours.
The High Court, however, found that the evidence of the neighbours, the child’s family members and other witnesses was consistent with the prosecution version. The Court also noted that the alleged enmity between the appellant and the neighbour was not established by reliable material.
The Court further considered the forensic evidence. The State FSL report recorded the presence of human semen on the child’s pants and the appellant’s underwear. The DNA profiling report stated that the DNA profile obtained from the child’s pants completely matched the DNA profile obtained from the appellant’s blood sample.The Bench observed:
“Oral evidence and circumstantial evidence, as well as medical evidence, duly corroborate the commission of the offence by the appellant.”
The High Court rejected the argument that absence of physical injury ruled out penetrative sexual assault. Referring to Section 3 of the POCSO Act, the Court explained that penetration of the penis into the anus of a child “to any extent” satisfies the statutory definition.
The Court held:
“Therefore, the act of the appellant by rubbing or touching his penis at the mouth of anus or slightest attempt to insert, amounts to penetrative sexual assault even in absence of any injury in the anus, because Section 3(1) provides that penetration to any extent, which includes touching the anus with penis for inserting, will be penetrative sexual assault.”
The Bench further noted that under Section 5(m) of the POCSO Act, penetrative sexual assault committed against a child below 12 years constitutes aggravated penetrative sexual assault. The child in the present case was less than eight years old at the time of the incident.
The High Court held that the trial court had correctly convicted the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and had imposed the minimum prescribed sentence of 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment. Finding no special circumstances warranting a lesser sentence, the Bench dismissed the appeal.
The Court concluded:
“Finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. The judgment of conviction dated 25.03.2022 and order of sentence dated 28.03.2022 passed by the learned Trial Court are affirmed.”
Case Details
Case Title: Shyam Veer v. State of Himachal Pradesh
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 347 of 2022
Judges: Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma
Decision Date: September 16, 2026
