Top court stays HC order on sexual assault

ON JAN 19, NAGPUR BENCH OF BOMBAY HC REVERSED AN EARLIER CONVICTION OF A 39-YEAR-OLD NAGPUR RESIDENT WHO PRESSED THE BREAST OF A 12-YEAR-OLD

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday stayed a Bombay High Court ruling acquitting a man of sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act because of the absence of skin-to-skin contact with the minor victim and permitted Attorney General KK Venugopal to file a petition against the order.

On January 19, justice Pushpa Ganediwala of the Nagpur bench of the Bombay HC reversed an earlier conviction of a 39-year-old Nagpur resident who pressed the breast of a 12-year-old girl.

The high court order stated that section 8 of the POCSO act, which penalises physical contact with sexual intent without penetration, did not apply as the minor was still wearing her clothes when the accused groped her. The section required “strict proof and serious allegations,” justice Ganediwala said.

Appearing before a threejudge bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) SA Bobde on Wednesday, Venugopal sought a stay of the HC judgment and said, “The order is very disturbing and is likely to set a dangerous precedent.”

The country’s top law officer told the court that the order passed by the Nagpur bench was “unprecedented”.

“It will mean that if a cloth is touched no case under Section 8 of POCSO Act is made out. This Court must take notice of the judgment,” he said.

The bench, which comprised justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian permitted

Venugopal to file a petition against the HC judgment and issued notice to the accused and the Maharashtra government seeking a response in two weeks.

The high court held the man guilty for a lesser offence of outraging the modesty of a woman (Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code) which carries a lesser sentence.

Another petition filed on Wednesday also challenged the Bombay high court judgment.

Filed by advocate Manju Jetley on behalf of the Youth Bar Association of India, the petition said that the high court had also named the minor victim in its judgment which violated section 228B of the IPC.