The Bombay High Court has held that removing a minor’s undergarment with sexual intent, without proceeding further, amounts to an attempt to commit sexual assault under the POCSO Act. Justice Abhay S. Waghwase partly allowed the appeal and reduced the sentence from five years to three-and-a-half years, applying Section 18 of the Act, which deals with punishment for attempting to commit an offence.
Background
The case arose from an incident alleged to have occurred on June 13, 2024, when the child was taken to a cattle shed. The prosecution alleged that the accused removed both his undergarment and the child's clothing. The trial court convicted him under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 9(m) read with 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
Challenging the conviction, the appellant questioned the delay in filing the complaint and pointed to inconsistencies between the accounts given by the child's mother and grandfather. He also relied on medical evidence, which found no injury to the child's private parts and no evidence of penetrative sexual assault.
After examining the testimony and medical evidence, the High Court noted differences in the accounts of the witnesses. It also observed that the mother's version regarding penetration was not supported by the medical findings. However, the Court found that the removal of the child's undergarment with sexual intent had been established.
The Court observed:
"Here, removal of undergarment is the act which is shown to be proved and it is explicitly done with sexual intent. Consequently, in the considered opinion of this Court, when accused has not proceeded beyond removing the undergarment, the act can be said to be an ‘attempt to commit sexual assault’."
The Court then considered Section 18 of the POCSO Act, which provides for punishment for an attempt to commit an offence. Applying this provision to the aggravated sexual assault offence involving a child below 12 years, it calculated the applicable sentence by taking half of the maximum seven-year term.
The judgment stated:
"Applying the Section 18, which provides for consideration of one half of the longest term of imprisonment, which in case of Section 9(m) is of 7 years, and taking into account half of the said period, the sentence comes to three and half years."
The High Court partly allowed the criminal appeal and modified the conviction to include Section 18 of the POCSO Act. It reduced the sentence to three-and-a-half years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹20,000, with a further six months of rigorous imprisonment in default of payment.
The remaining directions of the trial court were left unchanged.
Case Details
Case Title: Ganesh Hotlappa @ Prabhakar Padampalle v. State of Maharashtra & Another
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 42 of 2026
Judge: Justice Abhay S. Waghwase
Decision Date: October 13, 2026
