Centre issues Model Rules to States to aid Ease of Doing Business in Agroforestry (See 'Corp Brief') We have to make cycling trend in this modern generation: Mandaviya (See 'Corp Brief') Sonowal hails Brahma Kumaris for 50 years of spiritual service and human upliftment (See 'Corp Brief') CEA organises All-India Electrical Safety awareness programme (See 'Corp Brief') Arbitration & Conciliation Act - Commercial Court not justified in refusing to release 25% of arbitral award to petitioner-company solely due to its change of name: HC (See 'Legal Desk') SEBI - Delay in filing appeal not condonable where facts reflect that appellant was clearly aware of proceedings commenced by SEBI but did not prosecute appeal: SAT (See 'Legal Desk') India sends 1st consignment of rose-scented Litchi from Pathankot to Qatar (See 'Corp Brief') Govt approves ESI Amnesty Scheme - 2025 to reduce litigation (See 'Corp Brief') Sonowal inaugurates India's First Maritime NBFC - Sagarmala Finance Corporation Limited (See 'Corp Brief') NeGD launches 'AI in Governance' Training Program for Govt Officials at IIT Delhi (See 'Corp Brief') ECI starts proceedings to delist 345 RUPPs to begin with (See 'Corp Brief') Negotiable Instruments Act - as is trite law, a legal notice must be read as a whole & isolated errors such as typographical mistakes should not invalidate the entire notice: HC (See 'Legal Desk') Mega Infra Projects in Jharkhand, Sikkim, Assam & Arunachal Pradesh reviewed (See 'Corp Brief') President of India to preside over 'MSME Day' (See 'Corp Brief') NMDC invites applications for fully sponsored Education Programs for Tribal Youth (See 'Corp Brief') PMLA - Attachment of property does not effect or transfer title, unless property is confiscated and it can be when accused is convicted: SAFEMA (See 'Legal Desk') Workshop with FinTech Companies on expanding FASTag ecosystem (See 'Corp Brief') Bid submission timeline extended for SECI's Green Ammonia tender (See 'Corp Brief') Axiom-4 Marks Realisation of Vikram Sarabhai's dream: MoS (See 'Corp Brief') IBC - Dues of State is entitled to be treated as secured creditor u/s 53 of IBC: NCLAT (See 'Legal Desk') ECI to begin Special Intensive Revision of Electoral Rolls in Bihar (See 'Corp Brief') MoS calls for closer collaboration among IITs, IIMs, AIIMS, IIMC & CSIR (See 'Corp Brief') 7th Helicopter & Small Aircraft Summit held in Pune (See 'Corp Brief') CCI approves acquisition of shares in Aakash Educational by Manipal Health Systems (See 'Corp Brief') IPR - Merely adding mandarin character can't add any distinctiveness for being granted registration, and that too qua pharmaceutical product, if said character can't be deciphered by general public: HC (See 'Legal Desk') CCI approves acquisition in Manappuram Finance & Manappuram Asset Finance by Bain Capital (See 'Corp Brief') CCI okays acquisition of equity of Haldiram Snacks by Alpha Wave Ventures (See 'Corp Brief') Amended BharatNet Program operationalises in Gujarat (See 'Corp Brief') PMLA - Enforcement Directorate must pass orders under of retention under section 20(1) and 21(1) of the PMLA in respect of seized property and seized records: SAFEMA (See 'Legal Desk') Sonowal calls for Sports Resurgence in Assam (See 'Corp Brief') Vanijya Bhawan is symbol of Good Governance, Excellence: Goyal (See 'Corp Brief') SARFAESI - equitable considerations cannot override statutory auction process; writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to compel bank to accept One Time Settlement or interfere with SARFAESI proceedings already adjudicated under statutory forum: HC (See 'Legal Desk') Hindustan Copper welcomes Chile's CODELCO Team to India (See 'Corp Brief') IICA inks MoU with National Academy of Defence Production (See 'Corp Brief') Competition Act - mere dissatisfaction with service conditions or operational practices did not warrant intervention, more so where any prima facie case under Section 3 or 4 of the Act are not made out: CCI (See 'Legal Desk') Chouhan reviews ICAR-Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering in Bhopal (See 'Corp Brief') DG RPF calls for synergised action by RPF-GRP across States to Safeguard Railway Pax (See 'Corp Brief') Trade Marks - Where an application for registration of Trade Mark is filed on proposed to be used basis, the mark can still acquire distinctiveness before registration; refusal of registration based on lack of distinctiveness unjustified, more so where similar marks were registered by same authority: HC (See 'Legal Desk') PM leads nationwide celebrations of 11th International Day of Yoga (See 'Corp Brief') PMLA - Once property is already auctioned by bank under SARFAESI, legal implications of sale depended on whether sale certificate had been issued: SAFEMA (See 'Legal Desk') NCLAT is not a mere rubber stamp for CoC decisions (See CORP EINSICHT)

Controversial Interpretation of the POCSO Act

Published: Mar 02, 2021

By Shradha Rajgiri and Pooja Rao*

THE Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court ('High Court') has recently delivered two controversial judgments, which have caught the eye of the public. While interpreting provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 ('POCSO Act'), the dictum given in both these decisions are profoundly flawed and absurd. POCSO Act was primarily enacted to protect minors and young children against sexual offenses. Sexual offences against children are innately serious due to the inherent vulnerability of the victim child and the ability of an abuser to overpower them.

The Bench on both these occasions, delivered the judgment on the aspects of what constitutes physical contact and touch, severity of the sexual offenses, among others.

Brief Facts

Libnus v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 445/2020 1('Libnus case')

In the said case, a 50-year-old man unzipped his pants and held the 5-year-old girl's hand. The victim had also told her mother that the accused had taken his genitals out of his pants and asked her to sleep with him. The accused was convicted for the aggravated sexual assault under Section 10 of the POCSO Act and Section 12 of POCSO Act, in addition to Sections 354A and 448 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC').

The High Court of Bombay held that the punishment for sexual assault as prescribed under Sections 8 and Section 10 of the POCSO Act be set aside and in so far, the conviction of the accused for the offence punishable under Sections 448 and 354-A(1)(i) of the IPC read with Section 12 of the POCSO Act be maintained. The observation made in this regard was that 'holding the hands of the prosecutrix', or 'opened zip of the pant' as has been allegedly witnessed by one of the prosecution witnesses in the case, in the opinion of the Court, would not fall within the definition of 'sexual assault'. This judgment was rendered on the January 15, 2021.

Satish v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No.161/2020 2('Satish Case').

Subsequently, on the January 19, 2021, the same Bench delivered another judgement on similar lines. In this case the informant (mother of the prosecutrix) alleged that the accused, on the pretext of giving her 12-year-old daughter guava, took her to his house and pressed her breasts. The informant therein filed a First Information report ('FIR') . Based on the FIR, a crime case came to be registered against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 354, 363 and 342 of the IPC and under Section 8 of the POCSO Act. The Special Court had passed the judgment of conviction and sentenced the accused however acquitted the accused for the offenses punishable under Section 309 of the IPC.

The Judgement delivered by the Special Court was appealed before the High Court. Considering the facts, the Bench went onto analyse whether the 'pressing of breast' and 'attempt to remove salwar' would fall within the definition of 'sexual assault' as defined under Section 7 and punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

As per the definition of 'sexual assault', the offence involves the following necessary ingredients:

(i) Act must have been committed with sexual intent.

(ii) Act must involve touching the vagina, penis, anus, or breast of the child, or making the child touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of such person or any other person, or doing any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration

As per the observations of the Bench, for the offence to qualify as 'sexual assault', a 'physical contact with sexual intent without penetration' is an essential ingredient. Insofar as whether 'pressing of breast' falls within the purview of sexual assault under Section 7 of the POCSO Act is concerned, the Hon'ble High Court observed that it was not the case of the prosecution that the accused removed the top and pressed the breast of the Prosecutrix. As such, there being no direct physical contact i.e., skin to skin with sexual intent without penetration, the Bench held that the accused was acquitted under Section 8 of the POCSO Act and convicted under a minor offence u/s 354 of IPC.

Analysis

In the Satish case, the Court noted that the requirements of Section 7 of the POCSO Act were not met, as the prosecutrix's clothes were not removed, and the accused was also not able to remove her underpants, because when he tried to do so she shouted and he left the room, bolting it from the outside. The Court held that the act of the accused would be an act of "outraging the modesty of a woman" as defined in Section 354 of IPC. The Bench also observed that for punishment under Section 8 of POCSO Act, the offence defined in Section 7 is "disproportionate" to the gravity of the act that was committed.

In the Libnus case, the Bench quashed the conviction of the accused for the offense punishable under Sections 8 and 10 of the POCSO Act. The Bench in this case noted that the nature of the offense committed by the accused and the sentence prescribed by the Special Court are not in consonance with each other. At best, the crimes may be in the nature of aggravated sexual assault.

When the highest form of judiciary in a particular state adopts an approach completely unprecedented and against the morale of the society, no further hope remains with the victims suffering in pain and agony. Recently in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Sahar Ali Shaikh, before the Special Court of POCSO Act constituted under the Sessions Court in Mumbai, it was presented that the accused had approached the victim and touched her posterior. The Court held that touching of the posterior could not be held to be mere teasing and holding the accused guilty, sentenced him to 5 years of imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-.

Conclusion

Merely reducing the commission of the offense to a piece of cloth between the assaulter and the victims is completely repulsive in nature. This could have a larger implication on the society as well as legally. Such decisions in turn could discourage the victims from reporting such crimes and invalidate the sexual abuse faced by women and children. The interpretation given by the Bench of the Bombay High Court, would reduce the crime and affix lesser punishments on offenders. This could also leave male victims remediless in a similar situation, as Section 354 of the IPC is only available for female victims.

Therefore, the present interpretation by the Court also goes against the objectives of the POCSO Act.

Sexual assault remains as sexual assault, with no essentials or gradational qualification to it. The same is to be kept in mind before the Judiciary goes on a spree of passing judgments.

In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has stayed the operation of the controversial judgment of Satish v. State of Maharashtra, and Libnus Case . The Attorney General in the Libnus case also asserted that it was ""unprecedented" and "sets a dangerous precedent".

[The authors are Advocates with Shivadass & Shivadass (Law Chambers) and the views expressed are strictly personal.]

1 Libnus v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No. 445/ 2020, 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 66

2 Satish V. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal No.161/2020

TIOL CORP SEARCH

TIOL GROUP WEBSITES