Whereas hearing a criminal attraction filed by the convict, Justice Anil Kumar Ojha, in his order, acknowledged: “From the perusal of the provisions of the POCSO Act, it is evident that the offence dedicated by the appellant neither falls underneath Part 5/6 of the POCSO Act nor underneath Section 9(M) of the POCSO Act because there’s penetrative sexual assault in the current case because the appellant has put his penis into the mouth of the victim.read more…