A Woman Can Be Prosecuted Under POCSO If She Induces A Boy To Penetrate Her — Karnataka High Court Affirms Gender Neutrality of POCSO

“ POCSO Act Extends Its Protective Cover To Every Child, Unfettered By Gender, Class Or Circumstance” — In a significant and precedent-setting ruling Karnataka High Court clarified that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) is gender neutral, holding that a woman can be prosecuted under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act if the ingredients of the offence are fulfilled. The decision came in the case of XXX vs State of Karnataka, where a 48-year-old woman had sought quashing of criminal proceedings alleging that she sexually assaulted a 13-year-old boy.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna emphasized that the POCSO Act does not create a distinction based on the gender of the accused and is crafted to shield all children from sexual abuse, regardless of whether the perpetrator is male or female. The Court declined to interfere under Section 482 CrPC, now Section 528 BNSS, and directed the petitioner to face trial.

The case arose from allegations that the petitioner, a married woman residing in Bengaluru, engaged in repeated acts of penetrative sexual assault against a minor boy aged 13, during a span of several months between February and June 2020. The victim's mother lodged the complaint in 2024 after the boy, who had since moved to Dubai, began showing signs of emotional trauma and disclosed the abuse during psychological counselling.

In the FIR registered as Crime No. 533/2024, the police charged the petitioner under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. The charge sheet (Spl.C.C. No. 2050/2024) was filed before the Fast Track Special Court–I, Bengaluru. The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings, primarily arguing that a woman cannot be prosecuted under Sections 4 or 6, as the statute allegedly contemplates only male offenders.

The central question before the Court was whether a woman can be prosecuted for penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act, particularly Sections 3, 4, and 6, when the allegations suggest that she induced a male child to penetrate her.

Rejecting the argument that the offence of “penetrative sexual assault” can be committed only by a man, the Court observed:

“The POCSO Act does not differentiate genderwise. The intent of the Act is to protect all children, and to suggest that a boy cannot be the victim or that a woman cannot be the perpetrator would defeat the very objective of the statute.”

The Court referred to Section 3, which defines “penetrative sexual assault”, and noted that the provision begins with the words “Whoever commits...”, not “man”, thus indicating gender neutrality.

Quoting from the judgment, Justice Nagaprasanna held: “A plain reading of the provisions of Sections 3 and 5 makes it unmistakably clear that they are framed to prosecute any person, and not just men. Therefore, a woman who induces or manipulates a male child to penetrate her commits an offence under the Act.”

“The Law is Clear – The Victim’s Gender Does Not Alter the Offence”

The Court underscored that Section 3(d) of the POCSO Act specifically contemplates the situation where a child is induced to penetrate “him or any other person”, and that this broad language includes acts where a woman causes the child to penetrate her body.

Addressing the petitioner’s insistence on a restrictive, anatomical reading of the offence, the Court remarked:

“To limit the interpretation of penetrative sexual assault only to acts involving a male assailant would be to blindfold the judiciary to the object of the Act. The statute is clear — the victim’s gender does not alter the offence.”

The Court took support from the Delhi High Court’s decision in Sundari Gautam v. State of NCT of Delhi, where it was held:

“The POCSO Act criminalizes certain acts committed upon a child, regardless of the gender of the offender.”

Justice Nagaprasanna added: “This is not an issue of judicial philosophy. It is a question of statutory fidelity. The law applies equally, and justice cannot be gender-biased.”

Delay in Filing FIR Not a Ground for Quashing

The Court refused to accept the argument that the four-year delay in lodging the FIR rendered the complaint false or untenable. It noted that the delay was adequately explained, as the child had repressed the traumatic experience and only disclosed it during therapy.

Quoting from State of Himachal Pradesh v. Prem Singh and Tulsidas Kanolkar v. State of Goa, the Court observed:

“In cases of child sexual abuse, delays in disclosure are the norm, not the exception. Trauma, stigma, fear, and power dynamics are sufficient to explain silence.”

The Court explained that delayed reporting should not, by itself, cast doubt on the truthfulness of the victim’s account, especially when corroborated by counselling reports and statements.

Potency Test Not Essential in POCSO Offences

The petitioner further argued that no potency test was conducted on the child victim and that this omission invalidated the charge. The Court summarily rejected this argument, stating:

“The act in question is not dependent on potency, but on inducement. At 13 years of age, whether the child had attained puberty is legally immaterial.”

Justice Nagaprasanna made it clear that the POCSO Act criminalizes the act of manipulation or inducement itself, and the prosecution need not prove the biological capability of the victim.

“There Exists A Bias In Society That Males Cannot Be Victims” — Court Cites Data On Male Victimisation

To reinforce the need for a gender-neutral application of child protection laws, the Court cited the 2007 Government of India Study on Child Abuse, which found that:

“54.4% of sexual assault victims were boys, while 45.6% were girls.”

Quoting academic research from Texas Tech University, the Court noted: “The misconception that men or boys cannot be raped has led to systemic neglect. Legal interpretations must now correct this imbalance.”

In a powerful articulation, Justice Nagaprasanna observed: “The law must evolve to reflect social realities, not entrenched stereotypes. There exists a bias in society that males cannot be victims. The judiciary must rise above that.”

Dismissing the petition, the Karnataka High Court refused to quash the proceedings and directed that the matter proceed to trial. It held that prima facie ingredients of Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act were made out. The Court concluded:

“The complaint, the statements, and the charge sheet present a coherent and detailed narrative of abuse. The law is clear – if a child is induced to perform a penetrative act, regardless of who the perpetrator is, the offence stands established.”

The ruling firmly affirms that the POCSO Act is a gender-neutral instrument of child protection and marks a crucial step in judicial recognition of male victims of sexual assault, whose stories are often shrouded in silence and stigma.

Date of Decision: 18 August 2025