Can Women Be Punished for Penetrative Sexual Assault Under the POCSO Act?

The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) stands as a landmark legislation designed to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation. Unlike the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which traditionally framed sexual offences around male perpetrators and female victims, the POCSO Act consciously adopted a gender-neutral framework.

A recurring legal question, however, has been whether women can also be prosecuted for penetrative sexual assault under the Act. This issue came sharply into focus in 2025 in the case of Smt. Archana Patil v. State of Karnataka & Anr. (2025), where the accused—a 48-year-old woman—was charged with sexually assaulting a 13-year-old boy. The judgment delivered in this case has become a significant milestone in clarifying the scope of POCSO, particularly under Sections 4 and 6.

This article explores the issue in detail—beginning with the factual background of the case, moving to the relevant statutory provisions, analysing the judicial reasoning, and finally reflecting on the broader legal and social implications of this interpretation.

Objectives of the POCSO Act

The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the POCSO Act makes it clear that:

• The law was enacted to protect all children (boys and girls) below 18 years.
• It was a response to increasing cases of sexual abuse.
• It aimed to provide child-friendly procedures for investigation and trial.
• India was fulfilling its obligation under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (1992).

Importantly, the 2019 Amendment to POCSO clarified that the Act is gender-neutral and prioritises the welfare of children regardless of gender.

Statutory Provisions

Definition of Child

Section 2(d), POCSO Act:

“Child means any person below the age of eighteen years.”

This applies equally to boys and girls.

Section 3 – Penetrative Sexual Assault

A person is said to commit penetrative sexual assault if:

1. He penetrates his penis into the vagina, mouth, urethra, or anus of a child, or makes the child do so with him or another person.
2. He inserts any object or body part (other than penis) into the child’s private parts, or makes the child do so.
3. He manipulates the child’s body to cause penetration.
4. He applies his mouth to the child’s private parts, or makes the child do so.

Although the text uses the pronoun “he,” Section 2(2), POCSO Act refers to IPC definitions, and Section 8, IPC [now Section 2(10) of BNS] clarifies:

“The pronoun ‘he’ and its derivatives are used of any person, whether male or female.”

Thus, “he” must be read as gender-neutral.

Section 4 – Punishment for Penetrative Sexual Assault

• Minimum 10 years, extendable to life imprisonment and also liable to fine.
• If committed on a child below 16, a minimum of 20 years to life imprisonment.

Section 6 – Punishment for Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault

• Minimum 20 years, extendable to life imprisonment, or the death penalty in extreme cases and also liable to a fine.
• Covers repeated assault, abuse by persons in authority, and acts involving severe injury or threats.

Factual Background: The Archana Patil Case (2025)

The case that triggered this legal debate involved Smt. Archana Patil, a 52-year-old woman, and a minor boy aged 13 years at the time of the alleged incidents.

Neighbourhood Connection

• The complainant’s family (including her husband, son, and daughter) resided in Adarsh Vista, Doddanekundi, Bengaluru, a gated community with over 200 villas.
• Archana Patil had been living there for 22 years and was known as an accomplished artist who also offered art lessons to children in the community.
• The complainant’s children, including the victim boy, frequently visited Archana’s house, initially for art-related activities.

Allegations

According to the complaint:

• Between February and June 2020, Archana allegedly groomed the boy, luring him with art lessons and Instagram-related work.
• On one occasion, she locked the doors, kissed him, undressed herself and the boy, and forced him to penetrate her after putting a condom on him.
• On another occasion, when another girl was visiting, Archana allegedly sent her away and again coerced the boy into sexual acts, including oral sex.
• She allegedly threatened him not to disclose the incidents to anyone.

Aftermath

• In August 2020, the boy’s family shifted to Dubai.
• Over the next four years, the boy reportedly displayed psychological distress, becoming withdrawn and troubled.
• In 2024, during therapy sessions in Dubai, he disclosed the incidents in detail to his parents.
• The family returned to Bengaluru and filed a complaint at HAL Police Station, leading to registration of Crime No. 533/2024 under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

Procedural History

• Police investigated and filed a chargesheet before the Fast Track Special Court.
• The trial court took cognizance and issued summons to Archana.
• Archana approached the Karnataka High Court seeking quashing of proceedings under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS), arguing that a woman cannot be prosecuted under Sections 4 and 6 of POCSO.
• The High Court reserved its decision in July 2025 and delivered its judgment in August 2025.

Issues Before the Court

The Court framed the following key issues:

• Whether the POCSO Act is gender-neutral.
• Whether Sections 4 and 6 (penetrative and aggravated penetrative sexual assault) can apply to a woman.
• Whether the allegations satisfy the ingredients of Sections 4 and 6.
• Whether delay in complaint vitiates proceedings.
• Whether absence of a potency test of the boy affects the case.

Arguments

Petitioner’s Submissions

Impossibility of Female Perpetration: Since Section 3 uses “he penetrates his penis,” only men can be perpetrators. Women may commit indecent assault, but not penetrative assault.

Biological Factors: A 13-year-old boy may not have attained puberty; potency and erection were not proven. Without them, penetration was impossible.

Delay: Incidents allegedly occurred in 2020 but were reported only in 2024, raising doubts.

Respondent’s Submissions (Complainant and State)

Gender-Neutral Framework: Section 3 begins with “a person.” Section 8 IPC clarifies that “he” includes both male and female.

Legislative Intent: The POCSO Act and its 2019 amendment emphasise child protection irrespective of gender of victim or perpetrator.

Judicial Precedent: Delhi High Court in Sundari Gautam v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024 SCC OnLine Del 5412) held that women can be accused under POCSO.

Trauma and Delay: Victims, especially children, often delay disclosure due to fear and psychological impact.

Court’s Analysis

1. Gender Neutrality of POCSO

• Objects of the Act (2012): Enacted to protect children from sexual offences, whether boys or girls.
• 2019 Amendment: Explicitly reaffirmed that the Act is gender-neutral.
• Section 2(2) POCSO + Section 8 IPC: Where terms are undefined, IPC applies. Section 8 IPC states that “he” applies to both male and female.

Finding: The Act is unequivocally gender-neutral.

2. Can Women Be Prosecuted for Penetrative Sexual Assault?

• Section 3 begins with “a person,” which is inclusive.
• While clause (a) mentions “he penetrates his penis,” the provision also criminalises situations where a child is made to perform such acts “with him or any other person.”
• Clauses (b)–(d) cover insertion of objects, manipulation of body parts, and oral acts. These provisions are not limited to males.
• Judicial interpretation in Sundari Gautam held that restricting “he” to males defeats the legislative intent.

Finding: Women can indeed be accused under Sections 4 and 6.

3. Application to the Case

• The complainant’s son, aged 13, was clearly a child under Section 2(d).
• Allegations of forced penetration, oral sex, and repeated abuse fit squarely within Section 3 (penetrative sexual assault) and Section 5 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault).
• The accused, as a trusted neighbour and teacher, fell within “person in a position of trust” under Section 5.

Finding: Ingredients of Sections 4 and 6 were satisfied.

4. Delay in Filing Complaint

• The Court noted that trauma often delays disclosure of sexual abuse.
• Several judgments, including Bhiku Tukaram Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra (2011 Bom HC), recognise that delay alone does not invalidate allegations.

Finding: Delay was explained and not fatal.

5. Potency Test

• The argument that the absence of a potency test disproves allegations was rejected.
• The Court emphasised that the focus under POCSO is on coercion and exploitation of a child, not on the biological capacity of the minor to perform intercourse.

Court’s Ruling

Karnataka High Court held:

• POCSO is gender-neutral – it protects all children irrespective of gender.
• Women can be accused of penetrative sexual assault – Sections 4 and 6 apply to female perpetrators as well.
• The allegations, if proved, constitute penetrative and aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
• The petition for quashing proceedings was dismissed. The case must go to trial.

Conclusion

Karnataka High Court’s decision in Smt. Archana Patil v. State of Karnataka & Anr. marks a watershed moment in Indian criminal jurisprudence. By affirming that women can be punished for penetrative sexual assault under POCSO, the Court upheld the gender-neutral spirit of the Act and ensured equal protection for all children.

This judgment sends a strong message: sexual violence against children knows no gender boundaries, and neither should the law.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams