The Kerala Excessive Court docket has clarified that kissing a toddler’s penis quantities to penetrative sexual assault as outlined underneath Part 3(d) of the Safety of Youngsters from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act). [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 482]
Justice A. Badharudeen dismissed an enchantment most popular by a convict, who was awarded a 20-year time period for kissing a 14 ½ yr outdated boy on two events.
“the statutory wordings in Part 3(d) of the POCSO Act, it might be seen that making use of the mouth of the accused to the penis, vagina, anus or urethra of the kid is ample to seek out an offence as acknowledged in Part 3(d) of the POCSO Act. That’s to say, the legislation doesn’t mandate oral intercourse or deeper penetration for this particular clause and any intentional bodily contact the place the mouth is utilized to the desired personal elements satisfies the mandate. Equally, when the mouth touches the penis with sexual intent, the mentioned act to be categorized as penetrative sexual assault underneath Part 3(d), punishable underneath Part 4 of the POCSO Act,” the Court docket noticed.
The prosecution allegation was that the appellant/accused gave liquor and ganja to the sufferer, and thereafter, subjected him to aggravated sexual assault twice on the identical day. He was accused of the offences underneath Sections 4 [Punishment for penetrative sexual assault] r/w. 3(d) [Penetrative sexual assault], 7 [Sexual assault] r/w. 8 [Punishment for sexual assault] and 6 r/w. 5(l) of the POCSO Act, Part 377 [Unnatural offences] of the Indian Penal Code and Part 77 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Safety of Youngsters) Act, 2015.
The Particular Court docket discovered him responsible of Sections 10 [Punishment for aggravated sexual assault], 9(l) [Aggravated sexual assault – sexual assault more than once or repeatedly], 6 [Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault] and 5(l) [Aggravated penetrative sexual assault] of the POCSO Act and Part 77 JJ Act [Penalty for giving intoxicating liquor or narcotic drug or psychotropic substance to a child]. He was awarded a 20-year time period as punishment. Difficult the conviction and sentence, he approached the Excessive Court docket.
The Court docket famous that the standing of the sufferer as a ‘youngster’ isn’t disputed and stood proved by the varsity admission register copy marked by the Headmistress. It additionally took notice of the truth that the essential proof out there is that of the sufferer, who had deposed as PW1.
The Court docket additionally famous that proof was additionally tendered by the counsellor of Childline, who had referred the sufferer to the District Co-Ordinator. Moreover, the District Co-ordinator, the lady police officer who recorded the sufferer’s assertion, the Sub-Inspector who registered the FIR and the Inspector who carried out the investigation additionally tendered proof to help the prosecution case, it was famous.
The Court docket, after analyzing Part 3, was of the view that placing mouth of a kid’s penis in addition to the act of kissing would quantity to penetrative sexual assault and no deeper penetration is statutorily required.
Because the kissing occurred twice on the identical day, the Court docket held that the identical quantity to aggravated sexual assault as per Part 9(l).
“Within the prompt case, the proof of PW1 would present that the accused repeatedly kissed on the penis of the sufferer, be it so, the discovered Particular Decide is correct in holding that the appellant/accused dedicated offence underneath Part 9(l) r/w.10 of the POCSO Act. Therefore, the conviction is liable to be sustained,” the Court docket added.
It additionally refused to intrude with the sentence imposed by the Particular Decide and dismissed the enchantment.
Case No: Crl.A No. 1843 of 2023
Case Title: Thomas Thomas v. State of Kerala
Quotation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 482
Counsel for the appellant: M.R. Sasith
Counsel for the respondent: M.A. Shihab – Public Prosecutor
