Touching child’s private parts with sexual intent constitutes sexual assault: SC

Photo: IANS

New Delhi | The Supreme Court said on Thursday that the most important ingredient for sexual assault under the POCSO Act is sexual intent, and not skin-to-skin contact with the child, as it set aside the Bombay High Court judgement which held that skin-to-skin contact was necessary for invoking charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

In a majority judgment, a bench comprising justices U.U. Lalit and Bela M. Trivedi said that it would lead to a very detrimental situation, frustrating the very object of the Act, inasmuch as in that case touching the sexual or non-sexual parts of the body of a child with gloves, condoms, sheets or with cloth, though done with sexual intent would not amount to an offence of sexual assault under Section 7 of the POCSO Act.

The bench said the most important ingredient for constituting the offence of sexual assault under Section 7 of the Act is the “sexual intent” and not the “skin-to-skin” contact with the child.

Justice S. Ravindra Bhat gave a separate judgment where he concurred with the majority judgment dismissing the appeals.

SPONSORED CONTENT

Justice Trivedi, who authored the majority judgement, said, “Whoever with sexual intent touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child or makes the child touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of such person or any other person, would be committing an offence of ‘sexual assault’.”

The bench emphasised that the act of touching any sexual part of the body of a child with sexual intent or any other act involving physical contact with sexual intent, could not be trivialised or held insignificant or peripheral so as to exclude such act from the purview of “sexual assault” under Section 7 of the POSCO Act.

Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing on behalf of the accused through the Supreme Court legal services committee, contended that the phrases ‘sexual intent’, ‘touches’ and ‘physical contact’ have not been defined in the POCSO Act. However, the explanation to Section 11 states that any question which involves ‘sexual intent’ shall be a question of fact.

SPONSORED CONTENT

Luthra contended that since ‘sexual assault’ is defined under the POCSO Act, the definition of the words ‘assault’ or ‘criminal force’ contained in the IPC cannot be imported into the POCSO Act, though permitted under Section 2(2) of the POCSO Act.

The bench said Luthra’s submission that the expression ‘physical contact’ used in Section 7 has to be construed as ‘skin-to-skin’ contact cannot be accepted.

The top court said that it cannot be oblivious to the fact that the impact of traumatic sexual assault committed on children of tender age could endure during their entire life, and may also have an adverse effect on their mental state.

“The suffering of the victims in certain cases may be immeasurable,” it added.

IANS

The English Post is onΒ Telegram, click to join for regular news updates

 

SPONSORED CONTENT

Related posts