MINOR X Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner (child victim) impugns order dated 20.11.2018, whereby, the Trial Court has framed charges against the accused/respondent No.2 under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act 2012 .

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the observations in the medical report of the petitioner, it was evident that there was penetrative sexual assault, as specified in Section 3 POCSO, thereby attracting Section 6 POCSO. He submits that the Trial Court has erred in ignoring the medical opinion rendered in the MLC.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent, per contra, submits that there is no material to substantiate that any penetrative sexual assault had taken place. He further submits that the MLC does not indicate that there was any fresh injury mark and as such, the Trial Court had rightly not framed a charge under Section 6 POCSO.