Attorney General of India KK Venugopal on Tuesday urged the Supreme Court to reverse the controversial Bombay High Court judgment through which he It held that if there is no such thing as a direct ‘pores and skin to pores and skin’ contact between the accused and the kid, the offense of sexual harassment beneath POCSO wouldn’t be attracted.
On 19 January, the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court acquitted a person of sexual assault on the grounds of urgent a toddler’s breasts to his garments. Physical contact with out direct “skin-to-skin” doesn’t represent “sexual assault”. Under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act.
Urging the Supreme Court on Tuesday to reverse the impugned choice, the lawyer common mentioned the judges didn’t see the “far-reaching consequences” of the decision and known as it a “dangerous and outrageous precedent”.
“If tomorrow a person wears a pair of surgical gloves and feels a lady’s total physique, he won’t be punished for sexual assault based on this ruling. It is disrespectful. To say that there’s skin-to-skin contact is required, it will imply that the particular person sporting the gloves can be acquitted,” Venugopal mentioned.
A bench of Justices UU Lalit and Ajay Rastogi was listening to the Attorney General’s petition. Justice Pushpa V Ganediwalachoice of. Maharashtra State’s counsel Rahul Chitnis supported Venugopal’s arguments.
What does the Bombay High Court order say?
The High Court had overturned the choice of a classes court docket, which had convicted a 39-year-old man beneath part 8 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to 3 years in jail. Section 8 offers for punishment for the offense of sexual harassment as outlined in Section 7 of the Act.
In her judgment, Justice Pushpa V Ganediwala noticed: “As such, there is no direct physical contact i.e. skin-to-skin contact with sexual intent without penetration”. The bench noticed that “the act of breast-pressing can be a criminal force to a woman/girl with intent to outrage her modesty.”
The decide mentioned, “In view of the above discussion, this Court holds that the appellant has been acquitted under section 8 of the POCSO Act and has been convicted of a minor offense under section 354 of the IPC and is required to undergo an R.I. Punished.”
What did the Supreme Court say?
on January 27, Supreme Court had stayed Bombay High Court order. National Commission for Women additionally filed a separate attraction in opposition to the choice. On August 6, the Supreme Court had appointed senior advocate Siddharth Dave as an amicus curiae within the matter.
Since the accused didn’t have a lawyer regardless of giving discover on Tuesday, the bench ordered the authorized providers committee of the Supreme Court to make sure illustration. The matter has been posted for closing listening to on September 14, together with a petition filed in opposition to one other Bombay High Court judgment, which held that acts as “Holding the minor’s hand” and the accused “opening the zip of the pants” Sexual harassment doesn’t come beneath the POCSO Act.
— with inputs from LiveLaw
.
With inputs from TheIndianEXPRESS
