At the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, the quiet courtroom turned attentive on Thursday morning as Justice Nivedita P. Mehta delivered a long-awaited verdict in a sensitive POCSO appeal. The case, involving a 13-year-old girl from a densely built Yavatmal settlement, carried an uneasy tension-perhaps because the allegations seemed both simple and unsettling. When the judgment finally came, it left little room for doubt: the conviction would stand.
Background
The appellant, Sheikh Rafique Sk. Gulab, had challenged his 2019 conviction under Sections 354 and 354-A of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. According to the prosecution, he twice visited the minor’s house in October 2015 when her parents were out for work. On both days he asked for water; on both days he made a disturbing offer-₹50 in exchange for what the child later understood as sexual activity.
During the second incident, he allegedly held her hand. Startled and frightened, the girl ran to her maternal uncle, and the FIR was lodged soon after. The defence, however, argued that inconsistencies in timing and the nature of the surroundings-a crowded slum-made the allegations improbable. But the trial court had still imposed three years’ rigorous imprisonment under POCSO’s mandatory framework.
Court’s Observations
During the appeal hearing, Justice Mehta walked through the evidence slowly, at times almost conversationally, yet firmly. She noted that the victim’s testimony had remained “clear, consistent and natural,” even under cross-examination. Minor discrepancies, like slight variations in timing, didn’t bother the court. “The bench observed, ‘These are peripheral differences, not ones that shake the core truth of the child’s statement.’”
A significant contention from the defence-that such an incident could not occur unnoticed in a packed neighbourhood-was dismissed as speculative. The judge pointed out that the child was alone in the house both times, and external noise levels were irrelevant to the core allegation.
Even the hostile panch witness did not derail the prosecution’s case. The judge mentioned that POCSO matters often rely primarily on the child’s account, supported by basic investigation, rather than perfect documentation.
She further held that offering money to a minor for sexual activity, coupled with the act of holding her hand, fulfilled the legal definition of “sexual assault” under Section 7 of the POCSO Act, which prohibits sexually motivated physical contact. Since Section 8 prescribes the stricter punishment, Section 42 required the court to apply that provision.
There was also a brief discussion on probation, which the court rejected outright. Justice Mehta insisted that leniency in such offences would “defeat the purpose of sentencing in crimes involving minor victims.”
Decision
Concluding the matter, the High Court affirmed the conviction and maintained the sentence of three years’ rigorous imprisonment along with fines. The appeal was dismissed entirely. The judge directed that the appellant be informed of the decision through the concerned prison authorities, bringing the proceedings to a clear close.
Case Title: Sheikh Rafique Sk. Gulab v. State of Maharashtra
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 772/2019
Case Type: Criminal Appeal (POCSO conviction challenge)
Decision Date: 04 December 2025
