Misconceived interpretation of Section 7, POCSO

Introduction

The POCSO Act seeks to punish people involved in sexual offenses against children and is a gender-neutral law, that is it recognizes both girl and a boy can be victims of sexual offenses unlike Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code which only recognizes offenses against women. It not only comprehends penetrative sexual assault but nonpenetrative and aggravated sexual assault as well. The Act not only applies to physical assaults but also extends to offenses that happen over the internet. It includes possession of Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM), using of children for the purpose of creating CSAM, or exposing children to pornography or CSAM. The POCSO Act has a more stringent punishment for sexual assault in comparison to the punishment provided under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code.

POSCO- and child abusePOCSO was enacted to provide ammunition so that the children aren’t exposed to these barbarous exertions of society. Under the provisions of the Act, a child is entitled to the following rights:

  • Their statement can be recorded at their home or a place of their choice preferably by a woman officer or an official not below the rank of sub-inspector.
  • The child should not come in contact with the accused during the period of investigation.
  • The child should not be detained in a police station at night and his/her identity should be protected from the public and media unless directed otherwise by a Special Court.
  • If the survivor is a girl, a medical examination should be done in the presence of her parents or a person she trusts, if neither of them is available then the medical examination should be done in the presence of a woman nominated by the head of the medical institute.

A recent judgment of a single-judge bench of the Bombay High Court (at Nagpur) in Satish s/o Bandu Ragde Versus The State of Maharashtra, held that contact without skin to skin touch would not amount to sexual assault within the purview of Section 7 and was not punishable under Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

Section 7 of the Act states that whoever, with sexual intent touches the vegina, penis, anus, or breast of the child or makes the child touch the vegina, penis, anus, or breast of such person or any other person, or does any act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration is said to commit sexual assault. In the present case the accused pressed the child’s breast without removing her top and according to the bench, since the accused did not remove the girl’s top and there was no skin to skin touch, it did not amount to any contact and did not come under the pretext of sexual assault. However, the bench stated that pressing the girl’s breast will fall within the ambit of Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code which criminalizes outraging the modesty of women. Section 7 of the Act that is sexual contact without penetration has a punishment for imprisonment of not less than 3 years which may extend to 5 years and fine (Section 8) while on the other hand, Section 354 of IPC penalizes the assault only for a period of 1 year. It is indeed a polemic judgment that overlooked the juxtaposition of Section 7 of the POCSO Act and Section 354 of IPC. Even though there was not a detailed analysis of whether the accused removed the top of the 12-year-old girl or not and pressed her breast from over her top does not mean there was no sexual assault. Section 7 of the Act clearly acknowledges that any act done without penetration will amount to sexual assault, it need not be clarified that there should be skin-to-skin contact.

Conclusion

According to data provided by the National Crime Record Bureau, a total of 109 children were sexually abused every day in the year 2018. With the increase in offenses against children, it was felt that there was a high and mighty need for protecting children. The POCSO Act was enacted to provide special protection and provisions to children but over time there have been many instances where these laws were put in an obsolete position. The Kathua rape case is one such example, an eight-year-old girl was gang-raped and killed by eight accused among whom one was a minor. The minor accused was tried by a juvenile court and was not awarded any stringent punishment. Other accused were also provided with only 3 to 5 years of imprisonment. Even though the accused are being castigated, there seems to be a loophole in punishment for sexual offenses.

After the increase in cases, many measures have been taken to inhibit these offenses, and recently the parliament has asked the government to consider reducing juvenile delinquency age to 16 years under the POCSO Act. It is noted that there have been a large number of cases under the POCSO Act where the age of juvenile offenders is less than 18. This should be rectified so that the minor sexual offenders should not be left untreated. With the accrual of such scenarios, it is important to understand the laws thoroughly as Section 7 of the POCSO Act was misconceived by the Mumbai High Court.

Author: Swarnima Arya, a student of the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi, an intern at IIPRD. In case of any queries please contact/write back to us at aishani@khuranaandkhurana.com.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

8 − one =

Archives

  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010