DELHI HC RULING: POCSO ACT EXTENDS TO WOMEN IN PENETRATIVE SEXUAL ASSAULT CASES
Category: POCSO
「 ✦ Content ✦ 」
The Act imposes severe penalties for a number of sexual offences against minors, such as using children for pornographic purposes, sexual harassment, and both penetrative and non-penetrative sexual assault. Since the Act is gender-neutral, both male and female children are covered by it. But historically, male offenders and female victims have been involved in the majority of instances under this Act. Indian courts have interpreted the POCSO Act more broadly over time in order to guarantee that the protection it provides is inclusive and thorough. This involves acknowledging that regardless of the victim’s gender, all sexual offences against children should be covered by the law.
IntroductionÂ
Judge Anup Jairam Bhambhani stated in an August 9 judgement that the word “he” in Section 3 of the POCSO Act cannot be restricted to solely refer to men based on a conjoint interpretation of the POCSO provisions. The Court emphasized that it must be interpreted in accordance with its intended meaning, which encompasses all offenders, regardless of gender. It is evident that the POCSO Act contains no definitions for the pronoun “he.” One must refer to the definition of that pronoun as it appears in section 8 of the IPC in light of the POCSO Act’s section 2(2) clause. The Court ruled that the court could not interpret any provision of the POCSO Act in a way that would contradict the legislative intent and purpose, given that the Legislature enacted the Act with the intention of protecting children from sexual offences, regardless of whether a woman or a man commits the offence against a child. The Court went on to explain that it would be nonsensical to claim that the offence is limited to the insertion of the penis alone because the clause encompasses the insertion of any object, not only body parts.
Key aspectsÂ
From this perspective, the only logical conclusion is that the pronoun “he” in sections 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), and 3(d) should not be understood in a way that limits the offence mentioned in those sections to just “men.” The insertion of any instrument or body part, the manipulation of a child’s body part to create penetration, or the application of the mouth are all included in the definition of penetrative sexual assault, and this is very important to notice. Therefore, the Court stated that it would be totally nonsensical to claim that the offence covered by those articles merely relates to penis penetration.
The opening line of section 375 of the IPC explicitly refers to a “man,” but the opening line of section 3 [POCSO Act] refers to a “person,” even though the acts that constitute the gravamen of the offence in that section are the same as those in sections 3 and 5 of the POCSO Act. This court is not debating the definition and application of the term “man” as it appears in section 375 of the IPC at this time. However, there is no justification for reading the word “person” in section 3 of the POCSO Act as only referring to “males.” Therefore, it is decided that any act covered by POCSO Act sections 3 and 5 is illegal, regardless of the gender of the perpetrator, so long as the kid is the target of the act. In addressing a plea filed by Sundari Gautam, a woman, contesting the trial court judgement filing charges underÂ
Conclusion
The Court dismissed the argument and upheld the accused woman’s indictment under Section. The accused was represented by attorneys Piyush Sachdev, Raja Chatterjee, Ayushi Arora, Anupama Gupta, and Riya Datta. Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Utkarsh represented the State.
OLQ is a Pan-India basis law firm connecting legal expertise nationwide.
WRITTEN BY: MELVIN SUJAY
GUIDED BY: ADVOCATE ANIK
