SC questioned the interpretation of the collision during the hearings.
New Delhi:
The Supreme Court today ruled that “skin-to-skin” contact was unnecessary for a crime to be considered under the Child Protection from Sexual Offenses Act (POCSO). Calling it a “limited interpretation of the law”, the court reserved a Bombay High Court decision acquitting a man who said “groping a minor’s breasts without ‘continued’ skin-to-skin contact’ cannot be considered sexual assault under POCSO”.
Indicating that POCSO’s goal was to protect children from sexual abuse, the court said POCSO had physical contact for sexual purposes and that “skin-to-skin” contact was not the criteria.
Justice Minister KK Venugopal objected to Bombay HC’s ruling, arguing that the court’s interpretation meant “someone can put on a surgical glove and exploit a child and get away with crime”. He added that it would be taken as precedent and the results would be “dire”.
Senior advocate Sidharth Luthra defended the defendant and said, “sexual intent requires physical contact, but in this case, clothing must not touch the skin.”
The POCSO Act defines sexual assault as when someone “sexually touches a child’s vagina, penis, anus, or breast or causes the child to touch the vagina, penis, anus, or breasts of that person or any other person or any other act acting with a sexual purpose including physical contact without penetration is said to be the offense of sexual assault”.
SC questioned the interpretation of the collision during the hearings. “What does touch mean, simply a touch? Even if you are wearing a piece of clothing, they are not trying to touch the clothing. We must see touch in the sense that Parliament has made. determined”, the Court noted.
“We have argued that when the legislature makes clear intent, the courts cannot create ambiguity in the provision. It is true that the courts cannot be too abusive in creating ambiguity.” , the bench consisted of Judges UU Lalit, SR Bhat and Bela M Trivedi said.
The Minister of Justice, the National Commission on Women, the State of Maharashtra and the Youth Bar Association of India objected to the Bombay HC order stating that such observations would have widespread impacts on the entire society. and the general public.
“The most important element of a sexual assault offense is the sexual intent and not having skin-to-skin contact with the child. Building a rule should work with the rule rather than destroy it. Any narrow interpretation of the provision would be unacceptable to its subject. The intent of the legislature cannot be enforced unless a broader interpretation is given,” the bench said. The court said it was the first time the Attorney General had filed a criminal appeal.
Senior defender Sidharth Luthra appears as the convict in the case as an accused man, while his sister, senior advocate Geeta Luthra, makes an appearance. for the National Committee of Women. The Supreme Court said this time a sibling also went against each other.
On 27 January SC upheld the 19 January judgment of the Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court after the Attorney General mentioned it before SC. He was allowed to file an appeal against the verdict.
Mr. Venugopal, while referring to the matter before the SC submitted that the HC verdict was “unprecedented” and likely to set a “dangerous precedent”.
.
