Editor's Pick: Sexual intent key to assault of children, SC rules

The Supreme Court has quashed a Bombay High Court decision to acquit a man charged with assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) solely on the grounds that he groped the child over her clothes without “skin-to-skin” contact. On January 19, a single judge of the Bombay High Court’s Nagpur Bench created a furore by acquitting the man under the POCSO Act and holding that an act against a minor would amount to groping or sexual assault only if there was “skin-to-skin” contact. On Thursday, a Supreme Court Bench of Justices U.U. Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Bela M. Trivedi held that “the act of touching a sexual part of the body with sexual intent will not be trivialised and not excluded under Section 7 of the POCSO Act”. Section 7 mandates that “whoever with sexual intent touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child or makes the child touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of such person or any other person, or does any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration is said to commit sexual assault.” Justice Trivedi, who authored the judgment, observed that the “purpose of law is not to allow the offender to sneak out of the mesh of law.” The court said limiting the ambit of “touch” to a narrow and pedantic definition would lead to an “absurd interpretation”. The Bench noted that the most important notion in Section 7 was the sexual intent of the offender and not skin-to-skin contact. The conclusion that “sexual intent” mentioned in the provision should be ex facie skin to skin would defeat the object of the provision, the Supreme Court said. It would, rather than giving effect to the rule, destroy it. Justice Trivedi, speaking for the Bench, said when legislature had clarified its intent, the court should not introduce ambiguity. The court, while setting aside the High Court decision, confirmed the guilt of the offender in the case and sentenced him to three years of rigorous imprisonment, subject to the period he had undergone. On January 27, the Supreme Court had stayed the controversial judgment. Attorney-General K.K. Venugopal, who had moved the top court in the constitutional capacity of his office, had argued during the hearing that the “court should not be overzealous in searching for ambiguity when the words in the section [7] are plain. Someone can wear a surgical glove and exploit a child and get away scot-free… this is an outrageous order.” He stressed that the High Court order would set a “very dangerous precedent” and that it had a deleterious effect when the number of POCSO cases had reached 43,000 in a year. With the POCSO Act enacted to keep children out of harm’s way from sexual offenders, the Supreme Court has intervened to correct a misleading interpretation of the law and that makes it an important story of the day. The Hindu's Editorials A stimulating alliance: On addressing fiscal worries of States Agreeing to disagree: On U.S.-China ties Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Head over to our newsletter subscription page to sign up for Editor's Pick and more. Click here Try out The Hindu's daily news quiz Who is the Chief Justice of India? Ranjan Gogoi Deepak Misra Sharad Arvind Bobde N. V. Ramana To find out the answer and play the full quiz, click here. [logo] Editor's Pick 19 NOVEMBER 2021 [The Hindu logo] In the Editor's Pick newsletter, The Hindu explains why a story was important enough to be carried on the front page of today's edition of our newspaper. [Arrow]( [Open in browser]( [Mail icon]( [More newsletters]( Sexual intent key to assault of children, SC rules [Sexual intent key to assault of children, SC rules] [The Supreme Court has quashed a Bombay High Court decision]( to acquit a man charged with assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) solely on the grounds that he groped the child over her clothes without “skin-to-skin” contact. On January 19, a single judge of the Bombay High Court’s Nagpur Bench created a furore by acquitting the man under the POCSO Act and holding that an act against a minor would amount to groping or sexual assault only if there was “skin-to-skin” contact. On Thursday, a Supreme Court Bench of Justices U.U. Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Bela M. Trivedi held that “the act of touching a sexual part of the body with sexual intent will not be trivialised and not excluded under Section 7 of the POCSO Act”. Section 7 mandates that “whoever with sexual intent touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child or makes the child touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of such person or any other person, or does any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration is said to commit sexual assault.” Justice Trivedi, who authored the judgment, observed that the “purpose of law is not to allow the offender to sneak out of the mesh of law.” The court said limiting the ambit of “touch” to a narrow and pedantic definition would lead to an “absurd interpretation”.  The Bench noted that the most important notion in Section 7 was the sexual intent of the offender and not skin-to-skin contact.  The conclusion that “sexual intent” mentioned in the provision should be ex facie skin to skin would defeat the object of the provision, the Supreme Court said. It would, rather than giving effect to the rule, destroy it. Justice Trivedi, speaking for the Bench, said when legislature had clarified its intent, the court should not introduce ambiguity. The court, while setting aside the High Court decision, confirmed the guilt of the offender in the case and sentenced him to three years of rigorous imprisonment, subject to the period he had undergone. On January 27, the Supreme Court had stayed the controversial judgment. Attorney-General K.K. Venugopal, who had moved the top court in the constitutional capacity of his office, had argued during the hearing that the “court should not be overzealous in searching for ambiguity when the words in the section [7] are plain. Someone can wear a surgical glove and exploit a child and get away scot-free… this is an outrageous order.” He stressed that the High Court order would set a “very dangerous precedent” and that it had a deleterious effect when the number of POCSO cases had reached 43,000 in a year. With the POCSO Act enacted to keep children out of harm’s way from sexual offenders, the Supreme Court has intervened to correct a misleading interpretation of the law and that makes it an important story of the day.  [underlineimg] The Hindu's Editorials [Arrow][A stimulating alliance: On addressing fiscal worries of States]( [Arrow][Agreeing to disagree: On U.S.-China ties]( [underlineimg]  Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Head over to our newsletter subscription page to sign up for Editor's Pick and more. [Click here]( Try out The Hindu's daily news quiz Who is the Chief Justice of India? - Ranjan Gogoi  - Deepak Misra  - Sharad Arvind Bobde  - N. V. Ramana To find out the answer and play the full quiz, [click here](. Today's Best Reads [[India, China agree to restart talks between border commanders] India, China agree to restart talks between border commanders]( [[Tennis star Peng Shuai’s sexual assault allegations and the Chinese Communist Party's response | In Focus podcast] Tennis star Peng Shuai’s sexual assault allegations and the Chinese Communist Party's response | In Focus podcast]( [[Warlike situation prevails near LAC: Ladakh councillor] Warlike situation prevails near LAC: Ladakh councillor]( [[Rare original copy of U.S. constitution auctioned for $43 million] Rare original copy of U.S. constitution auctioned for $43 million]( Copyright @ 2021, THG PUBLISHING PVT LTD. If you are facing any trouble in viewing this newsletter, please [try here]( If you do not wish to receive such emails [go here](