The Supreme Court of India has set aside the controversial judgment of the Bombay HC which held that ‘skin-to-skin’ contact is necessary for the offence of sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences(POCSO) Act<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n Background<\/b><\/p>\n The <\/span>Bombay High Court <\/span>in <\/span>Satish v State of Maharashtra <\/b>had acquitted a man charged with assault under the POCSO Act solely on the grounds that he groped the child over her clothes without \u201cskin-to-skin\u201d contact.<\/span><\/p>\n This judgment was challenged in the Supreme Court.<\/span><\/p>\n The Supreme Court has quashed the judgement of the Bombay High Court.<\/span><\/p>\n The court said that touching a child with sexual intent\u2014even through clothing\u2014is sexual assault under the POCSO Act.<\/span><\/p>\n Further, the court said that the <\/span>most important ingredient for constituting an offence of sexual assault under Section 7 of POCSO Act is the \u201csexual intent\u201d and not the \u201cskin-to-skin\u201d contact with the child.<\/span><\/p>\n Hence,<\/span> limiting the ambit of \u201ctouch\u201d to a narrow definition would lead to an \u201cabsurd interpretation\u201d and defeat the purpose of the act.<\/span><\/p>\n Note<\/b>: <\/span>Section 7 of POCSO Act mandates that \u201cwhoever 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\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n Source: <\/b>This post is based on the following articles:\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n What is the News? The Supreme Court of India has set aside the controversial judgment of the Bombay HC which held that ‘skin-to-skin’ contact is necessary for the offence of sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences(POCSO) Act. Background The Bombay High Court in Satish v State of Maharashtra had acquitted a… Continue reading Sexual intent, not skin-to-skin contact, key: SC<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":10317,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1566,1760,9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-147727","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-daily-factly-articles","category-polity-and-nation","category-public","entry"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","views":{"total":0,"cached_at":"","cached_date":1702662224},"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/147727","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/10317"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=147727"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/147727\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=147727"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=147727"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=147727"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}What has the Supreme Court said?<\/b><\/h5>\n
\n