Kerala High Court has partly allowed a criminal appeal filed by a 58-year-old man convicted under the POCSO Act, cutting down his seven-year jail term to three years after re-examining what exactly the law means when a victim says he was touched on the "chest."
Background of the Case
The case goes back to May 2022, when a 12-year-old boy from Malappuram district told his parents that a man had grabbed him from behind near a shop at Arimbra Junction. According to the boy's statement, he had gone to buy a mosquito repellent when the accused, Aboobacker, allegedly caught hold of his stomach and chest, then grabbed his hand and asked him to come to a nearby vacant house, offering him Rs 50. The boy pulled away and ran home, where he narrated the incident to his father.
A case was registered at Kondotty Police Station, and after investigation, the Special Court under the POCSO Act at Manjeri convicted Aboobacker in January 2024. The trial court found him guilty under Section 9(l) read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act - the provision dealing with aggravated sexual assault committed repeatedly on a child - and sentenced him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 50,000.
Aboobacker challenged this conviction before the High Court through his legal aid counsel.
Arguments Before the Court
The defence counsel argued that the victim's own testimony did not support a finding of repeated assault. Going through the evidence, the lawyer pointed out that the boy spoke of only one incident with specific details, even though he had vaguely mentioned an earlier occurrence two months prior without giving any particulars - a claim he did not even repeat before the magistrate while recording his statement under Section 164 of the CrPC.
The defence also raised an unusual but interesting point: it argued that "chest" and "breast" are medically and anatomically different, and since Section 7 of the POCSO Act specifically criminalises touching the "breast" with sexual intent, merely touching the "chest" would not attract the offence.
Court's Observation
Justice A. Badharudeen examined dictionary meanings of both words before rejecting this distinction. The bench observed that while there may be a technical medical difference between the two terms, in ordinary usage - particularly in molestation cases - "chest" is commonly used as a synonym for "breast."
The court noted,
"When considering the ingredients of the offence of sexual assault as defined u/s 7 of the POCSO Act, spoken by a victim stating that the accused grabbed on his chest with sexual intent the only inference to be drawn is that the accused grabbed on the breast."
However, on the question of repeated assault, the judge agreed with the defence. The bench found that the prosecution had not established a second or repeated act with sufficient detail, and therefore the ingredients for an offence under Section 9(l) - which requires proof of assault "more than once or repeatedly" - were not made out.
The Decision
The High Court set aside the conviction and seven-year sentence imposed under Section 9(l) read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act. Instead, it convicted Aboobacker under the milder Section 7 read with Section 8, which deals with a single act of sexual assault without repetition.
Taking note that Section 8 prescribes a minimum sentence of less than three years, the court sentenced him to three years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 5,000, with two weeks of default imprisonment if the fine is not paid.
The appeal was allowed in part, and the registry was directed to send copies of the judgment to the trial court and the jail superintendent for compliance.
Case Details
Case Title: Aboobacker v. State of Kerala & Anr.
Case Number: CRL.A No. 1853 of 2025
Judge: Justice A. Badharudeen
Decision Date: July 10, 2026
