Sec 7 POCSO – Main Ingredient Of Offence Of ‘Sexual Assault’ Is ‘Sexual Intent’ And Not ‘Skin To Skin” Contact: Supreme Court

  • Post category:Daily Judgments
  • Reading time:6 mins read

Sec 7 POCSO – Main Ingredient Of Offence Of ‘Sexual Assault’ Is ‘Sexual Intent’ And Not ‘Skin To Skin” Contact

Case: Attorney General for India versus Satish and another

Coram: Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice Bela Trivedi

Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1410 – 1414 Of 2021

Court Observation: “The very object of enacting the POCSO Act is to protect the children from sexual abuse, and if such a narrow interpretation is accepted, 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 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”

“it is not the case of the prosecution that the appellant removed her top and pressed her breast… it is not the case of the prosecution that the appellant removed her top and preher breast. As such, there is no direct physical contact i.e. skin to skin with sexual intent without penetration.”

“Considering the stringent nature of punishment provided for the offence, in the opinion of this Court, stricter proof and serious allegations are required. The act of pressing of breast of the child aged 12 years, in the absence of any specific details as to whether the top was removed or whether he inserted his hand inside top and pressed her breast, would not fall in the definition of ‘sexual assault’.”

“Therefore, the act of touching the sexual part of body or any other act involving physical contact, if done with “sexual intent” would amount to “sexual assault” within the meaning of Section 7 of the POCSO Act.”

“It is not the presence or lack of intervening material which should be focused upon, but whether the contact made through the material, comes within the definition prescribed for a particular statue, has to be seen”

“As per the rule of construction contained in the maxim “Ut Res Magis Valeat Quam Pereat”, the construction of a rule should give effect to the rule rather than destroying it. Any narrow and pedantic interpretation of the provision which would defeat the object of the provision, cannot be accepted.”

“Restricting the interpretation of the words “touch” or “physical contact” to “skin to skin contact” would not only be a narrow and pedantic interpretation of the provision contained in Section 7 of the POCSO Act, but it would lead to an absurd interpretation of the said provision. “skin to skin contact” for constituting an offence of “sexual assault” could not have been intended or contemplated by the Legislature.”

“The very object of enacting the POCSO Act is to protect the children from sexual abuse, and if such a narrow interpretation is accepted, 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 principle of “ejusdem generis” should be applied only as an aid to the construction of the statute. It should not be applied where it would defeat the very legislative intent.”

“As per the settled legal position, if the specific words used in the section exhaust a class, it has to be construed that the legislative intent was to use the general word beyond the class denoted by the specific words. So far as Section 7 of the POCSO Act is concerned, the first part thereof exhausts a class of act of sexual assault using specific words, and the other part uses the general act beyond the class denoted by the specific words.”

[doc id=11899]

Previous Posts

Restricting ‘Touch’ Or ‘Physical Contact’ Only To ‘Skin To Skin’ Contact Absurd: Supreme Court Reverses Bombay HC’s POCSO Judgment

‘Ambush PILs’ Filed To Preclude Genuine Litigants; Summary Dismissal Of Earlier Article 32 Petition Won’t Operate As Res Judicata: Supreme Court

Right To Be Represented By Counsel Or Agent Of Choice In Disciplinary Proceedings Is Not Absolute: Supreme Court

Low Age Of Rape Victim Is Not Considered As The Only Or Sufficient Factor To Impose Death Sentence: Supreme Court

Conviction Based On Disclosure Statement Can Be Sustained Only When Resultant Recovery Is Unimpeachable: Supreme Court Download Judgement

Keywords

Sec 7 POCSO, Sec 7 POCSO main ingredient, Sexual Assault, Sexual Intent, Skin To Skin Contact