[BREAKING] NCW moves Supreme Court against Bombay High Court judgment which ruled skin-to-skin contact necessary for 'sexual assault' under POCSO

The National Commission for Women has approached the Supreme Court against the controversial judgment of the Bombay High Court which had held that pressing the breast of a 12-year old child without removing her top will not fall within the definition of ‘sexual assault’ under Section 7 the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO).

. The NCW has claimed that the interpretation adopted by the Hon’ble High Court that physical contact means ‘skin to skin touch’ is perverse and bad in law.

. "From a plain reading of relevant provision, it is clear that “Sexual Assault” in terms of Section 7, POCSO Act is predominantly a touch by the offender. If an accused touches a victim (or a victim’s body part) with sexual intent then the act of “Sexual Assault” is complete. There can be no further classification of contact, i.e. skin to skin contact," the plea drawn by advocate Shivani Luthra Lohiya , settled by Senior Advocate Geeta Luthra and filed through advocate Nitin Saluja states. . Physical contact cannot be given an absurd interpretation of a touch or contact without clothes, the plea adds.

.[BREAKING] Supreme Court stays Bombay High Court judgment which ruled skin-to-skin contact necessary for offence of 'sexual assault' under POCSO. The High Court had on January 19 ruled that pressing the breast of a 12-year old child without removing her clothes will only fall within the definition of outraging the modesty of woman under Section 354 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and not 'sexual assault' under POCSO.

Whereas the punishment for sexual assault under Section 8 of the POCSO Act is imprisonment of 3-5 years, the punishment under Section 354 of IPC is imprisonment of 1-5 years.

. The High Court had then proceeded to examine Section 7 of POCSO and the ingredients of the offence of 'sexual assault'.

The ingredients for constituting the offence of 'sexual assault' are that the act must have been committed with sexual intent and it must involve touching the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child or 'any other act' which are similar to the acts specifically mentioned in the provision, the High Court said.

"The words ‘any other act’ encompasses within itself, the nature of the acts which are similar to the acts which have been specifically mentioned in the definition on the premise of the principle of ‘ejusdem generis.’ The act should be of the same nature or closure (sic) to that", the High Court opined acquitting the accused under POCSO.

. NCW has now challenged the High Court's interpretation of the words "any other act".

. "The second part of Section 7, POCSO Act uses general words only to guard against some accidental omission in the object mentioned in the first part and is not intended to extend or limit the object to a whole different level," NCW has submitted. . The High Court judgment had invited sharp criticism. Eventually, the Supreme Court had on January 27 stayed the judgment of the High Court after it was brought to the notice of the Court by Attorney General KK Venugopal.

.[POCSO Acquittals] Supreme Court Collegium withdraws recommendation to make Bombay High Court judge permanent. The High Court judge, Justice Pushpa V Ganediwala who authored the verdict also had to face the consequences with the Supreme Court Collegium withdrawing its consent to make Justice Ganediwala a permanent judge of Bombay High Court. She is currently an additional judge.

Interestingly, Justice Ganediwala had handed down two other acquittals under the POCSO Act in two separate cases, all within a week.

[BREAKING] NCW moves Supreme Court against Bombay High Court judgment which ruled skin-to-skin contact necessary for 'sexual assault' under POCSO

Bar & Bench

Related Stories