The Supreme Court further stressed that the victim’s frightened state upon seeing the accused was, in itself, a significant indicator. “The whole sequence of events in course of recording of evidence of PW-1 (victim) was tale-telling. The shock related to the happening of the incident which continued with the victim post-incident made its statement in the trauma-filled behaviour of the victim who was a 4-year-old girl,” it stated.

While rejecting Jaldhari’s plea for leniency, the apex court said a vain attempt was made on behalf of the appellant to argue that there was no suggestion of, much less evidence of, penetration in the sexual assault and therefore the conviction and sentence were not justified. “The Court is not impressed with this submission, given the facts and evidence on record,” it added.

Section 7 of the POCSO Act defines sexual assault and Section 8 prescribes the punishment for the said offence, which is imprisonment of either description for a term not less than three years and which may extend to five years, along with a fine.

The offence of aggravated sexual assault is defined under Section 9. The punishment for aggravated sexual assault is prescribed under Section 10, which stipulates imprisonment for a term not less than five years and which may extend to seven years, along with a fine.

In the present case, the appellant has been convicted under Section 9(m), with the trial court and the High Court having concurrently found that he had committed sexual assault on a child below 12 years, which falls under Section 9 read with Section 10, the Supreme Court noted.

“The evidence highlighted above go to establish the commission of offence. The appreciation of evidence of the trial court and consideration thereof by the High Court could be said to be eminently legal and proper, warranting no interference by this Court,” the Supreme Court said.