The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act was enacted in 2012 especially to protect children (aged less than 18) from sexual assault. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act admitted that a number of sexual offences against children were neither specifically provided for in extant laws nor adequately penalised. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by India in 1992, also requires sexual exploitation and sexual abuse to be addressed as heinous crimes. It was therefore felt that offences against children be defined explicitly and also countered through commensurate penalties as an effective deterrence.

It was in this backdrop that the recent judgment of the Bombay High Court, in Satish Ragde v. State of Maharashtra, in which the accused was acquitted under the POCSO Act, came under massive criticism. The Bench acquitted a man found guilty of assault on the grounds that he groped his victim over her clothes and there was no skin-to-skin contact between them. As this judgment was likely to set a dangerous precedent, the apex court stayed the acquittal.

Also read | Centre notifies new POCSO rules making law for sexual offences against children more stringent

Section 7 of the POCSO Act, inter alia, says that whoever with sexual intent touches the breast of the child is said to commit sexual assault. Whereas Section 8 of the Act provides minimum imprisonment of three years for sexual assault, Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) lays down a minimum of one year imprisonment for outraging the modesty of a woman.

The difference between POCSO and IPC, as far as the offence of sexual assault is concerned, is two-fold. One, the definition of ‘assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty’ given in the IPC is generic whereas in POCSO, the acts of sexual assault are explicitly mentioned such as touching various private parts or doing any other act which involves physical contact without penetration. ‘Sexual assault’ in POCSO specifically excludes rape which requires penetration; otherwise the scope of ‘sexual assault’ under POCSO and ‘outraging modesty of a woman’ under the IPC is the same. Two, whereas the IPC provides punishment for the offence irrespective of any age of the victim, POCSO is specific for the protection of children. Higher punishment is provided under POCSO not because more ‘serious allegations’ of sexual assault are required but because the legislature wanted punishment to be more deterrent if the victims are children. Therefore, once the act of ‘outraging modesty with the use of assault or criminal force’, which is nothing but ‘sexual assault’, is proved, the requisite punishment must be slapped under POCSO if the victim is a child.

The essence of a woman’s modesty is her sex and the culpable intention of the accused is the crux of the matter in the cases of sexual assault. In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), the Supreme Court held that the offence relating to modesty of woman cannot be treated as trivial. In Pappu Singh Rajput v. State of Chhattisgarh (2015), the High Court of Chhattisgarh, though it acquitted the accused under Section 354 of the IPC as the offence was found lacking in use of ‘criminal force or assault’, convicted him for sexual harassment under Section 354A which requires ‘physical contact’ and advances as a necessary element. This case also pertained to squeezing the limbs and breasts of a 13-year-old girl but the High Court did not venture into the area of skin-to-skin contact.

Also read | Bombay High Court judge quashes another POCSO conviction

It will not be out of place to mention here that the Sexual Offences Act 2003 of the U.K. says that touching (with sexual intent) includes touching with any part of the body, with anything else or through anything. The POCSO Act might be silent on such niceties; it is the bodily integrity of a woman that needs to be protected. Therefore, in the absence of any specific provision in the POCSO Act which requires skin-to-skin touch as a mandatory element of an offence, any interpretation which dilutes protection to children must be declared ultra vires.

R.K. Vij is a senior IPS officer in Chhattisgarh. Views are personal

This story is available exclusively to The Hindu subscribers only.

Already have an account ? Sign in

Start your 14 days free trial. Sign Up

Find mobile-friendly version of articles from the day's newspaper in one easy-to-read list.

Enjoy reading as many articles as you wish without any limitations.

A select list of articles that match your interests and tastes.

Move smoothly between articles as our pages load instantly.

A one-stop-shop for seeing the latest updates, and managing your preferences.

We brief you on the latest and most important developments, three times a day.

*Our Digital Subscription plans do not currently include the e-paper, crossword and print.

Dear reader,

We have been keeping you up-to-date with information on the developments in India and the world that have a bearing on our health and wellbeing, our lives and livelihoods, during these difficult times. To enable wide dissemination of news that is in public interest, we have increased the number of articles that can be read free, and extended free trial periods. However, we have a request for those who can afford to subscribe: please do. As we fight disinformation and misinformation, and keep apace with the happenings, we need to commit greater resources to news gathering operations. We promise to deliver quality journalism that stays away from vested interest and political propaganda.

Dear subscriber,

Thank you!

Your support for our journalism is invaluable. It’s a support for truth and fairness in journalism. It has helped us keep apace with events and happenings.

The Hindu has always stood for journalism that is in the public interest. At this difficult time, it becomes even more important that we have access to information that has a bearing on our health and well-being, our lives, and livelihoods. As a subscriber, you are not only a beneficiary of our work but also its enabler.

We also reiterate here the promise that our team of reporters, copy editors, fact-checkers, designers, and photographers will deliver quality journalism that stays away from vested interest and political propaganda.

Suresh Nambath

Please enter a valid email address.

To reassure Indian Muslims, the PM needs to state that the govt. will not conduct an exercise like NRC

You can support quality journalism by turning off ad blocker or purchase a subscription for unlimited access to The Hindu.

Sign up for a 30 day free trial.