Case Name: Krishna Chettri v. State of Sikkim (2026)

Factual Background

The present case arose from a deeply disturbing incident involving a minor victim aged approximately five years. An FIR was lodged on 5 September 2020 alleging that the appellant, a man aged around sixty years, had sexually assaulted the child near her residence. Upon investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet under the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), including aggravated penetrative sexual assault, along with relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code relating to rape.

The Trial Court, after examining fourteen prosecution witnesses, convicted the accused under the aggravated provisions of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to twenty years of rigorous imprisonment. The accused preferred an appeal before the High Court. Notably, the defence did not dispute the occurrence of sexual assault or the age of the victim. Instead, the appeal was narrowly focused on contesting the nature of the act arguing that the prosecution had failed to establish “penetrative sexual assault,” and that the conviction should be reduced to a lesser offence carrying a significantly lighter sentence.

Court’s Analysis

The High Court undertook a careful and sensitive evaluation of the evidence, particularly bearing in mind the age and vulnerability of the victim. The Court placed considerable reliance on the testimony of the child, who, despite her tender years, gave a consistent and clear account of the incident. She described how the accused had inserted his finger into her private parts, causing pain. The Court emphasised that while child witnesses may not possess the articulation skills of adults, their testimony must be assessed with sensitivity rather than scepticism.

This testimony was strongly corroborated by the eyewitness (PW-4), who had directly observed the accused engaging in inappropriate and sexual conduct with the child. Her account remained unshaken during cross-examination, thereby reinforcing the prosecution’s case.

The medical evidence further supported the allegation of sexual violence. The examining doctor noted injuries in the genital and anal regions of the child, and opined that sexual assault could not be ruled out. While the defence attempted to rely on the absence of conclusive proof of penetration, the Court clarified that under the POCSO Act, even digital penetration(insertion of finger) qualifies as penetrative sexual assault.

Importantly, the Court also addressed procedural concerns in POCSO trials. It observed that the presence of the accused in open view during testimony could traumatise child victims. Accordingly, it issued a forward-looking direction that trial courts should ensure that the accused is placed behind a one-way mirror to minimise psychological harm to the victim during proceedings.

Order of the Court

The High Court upheld the findings of the Trial Court in their entirety. It affirmed that the prosecution had successfully established the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and the sentence of twenty years’ imprisonment were sustained, and the appeal was dismissed.

Key Takeaway

This decision reinforces that digital penetration falls squarely within the definition of penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act, and that the testimony of a child victim, when consistent and corroborated, is sufficient to sustain a conviction. The judgment also contributes to victim-sensitive trial procedures by recommending safeguards against re-traumatisation.

Written by Adv. K. Sri Hamsa