Justice Sharma Highlights Distinction Between Violation of Modesty and Sexual Intent
The Delhi High Court recently clarified that merely touching and pressing a minor girl's lips or sleeping beside her, without sexually motivated advances, does not constitute "aggravated sexual assault" under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
In a ruling delivered on February 24, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma stated that such acts, while deeply inappropriate and violating the dignity and modesty of the child, fail to meet the threshold of explicit or inferred sexual intent necessary under Section 10 of the POCSO Act.
However, the court found clear grounds for prosecution under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which deals explicitly with "assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty."
Court Discharges Accused from POCSO, Sustains IPC Charges
The judgment arose from a plea by the uncle of a 12-year-old girl who challenged charges framed against him under both Section 354 IPC and Section 10 of the POCSO Act. The court upheld charges under IPC Section 354 but discharged him under Section 10 of POCSO due to insufficient evidence of sexual intent.Justice Sharma explained, "Essential ingredients of an offence under Section 354 of IPC are squarely met. This provision criminalizes the use of criminal force or assault against a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty or with the knowledge that such an act is likely to do so."
Supreme Court's Definition of Modesty Reinforced
Referencing earlier rulings of the Supreme Court, the High Court emphasized that "modesty" must be interpreted considering the dignity and bodily autonomy of women and minor girls. The judgment observed:Context of the Case: Familial Trust and Violation
The court took into account the context of the incident, highlighting the vulnerability of the minor girl, who was abandoned by her mother at a young age and resided in a childcare institution. At the time of the incident, she was visiting her family. The court stated that inappropriate contact by a trusted family member constituted a severe violation of the child's dignity and bodily autonomy.According to the ruling, even minimal physical contact, when performed with intent or knowledge that it would outrage modesty, is sufficient to trigger prosecution under IPC Section 354.
Court Criticizes 'Mechanical' Orders by Trial Courts
The Delhi High Court also criticized the practice among trial courts of issuing brief, non-descriptive orders while framing charges. Justice Sharma termed the trend of "cryptic, non-speaking, proforma orders," devoid of detailed reasoning, as unacceptable.The court underscored:
This ruling emphasizes the judiciary's commitment to clarity and precision in handling sensitive cases involving minors, urging trial courts to adopt thoroughness and diligence in judicial proceedings.
