SC Stays Bombay HC Order Saying Groping Minor Without Skin-To-Skin Contact Isn't Sexual Assault
The Supreme Court stayed a recent Bombay High Court order which said that ˇ°groping a minor's breast without "skin to skin contact" cannot be termed as sexual assaultˇ±.
A bench of Chief Justice S A Bobde and Justices A S Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian stayed the high court order after Attorney General K K Venugopal mentioned the matter.
The top court also issued notice to the Maharashtra government and permitted the AG to file an appeal against the January 19 verdict of the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court which acquitted a man under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act on the above-mentioned observations.
The Bombay HC had said that since the man groped the child without removing her clothes the offence cannot be termed as sexual assault but it does constitute the offence of outraging a woman's modesty under IPC section 354.
The high court had modified the order of a sessions court, which had sentenced a 39-year-old man to three years of imprisonment for sexually assaulting a 12-year-old girl.
It held that mere groping will not fall under the definition of sexual assault.
Order caused massive outrage
The order, however, had caused outrage and many had questioned the logic behind the court's conclusion.?
The case dates back to December 2016, when the accused, identified as Satish took a minor girl to his house in Nagpur on the pretext of giving her something to eat.
Once there, he gripped her breast and attempted to remove her clothes.
The sessions court had sentenced the accused to three years of imprisonment for the offences under the POCSO Act as also under IPC section 354. The high court, however, acquitted him under the POCSO Act while upholding his conviction under IPC section 354.
However the high court modified the conviction and held that since he groped her without removing her clothes, the offence cannot be termed as sexual assault and, instead, constitutes the offence of outraging a woman's modesty under IPC section 354.
"Considering the stringent nature of punishment provided for the offence (under POCSO), in the opinion of this court, stricter proof and serious allegations are required," the high court said.
"The act of pressing of breast of the child aged 12 years, in the absence of any specific detail as to whether the top was removed or whether he inserted his hand inside the top and pressed her breast, would not fall in the definition of sexual assault," it said.
It further said that "the act of pressing breast can be a criminal force to a woman/ girl with the intention to outrage her modesty".
The court, in its verdict, had held that this "physical contact" mentioned in the definition of sexual assault must be "skin to skin" or direct physical contact.
"Admittedly, it is not the case of the prosecution that the appellant removed her top and pressed her breast. As such, there is no direct physical contact i.e. skin to skin with sexual intent without penetration," the High Court had said.
