INSUBCONTINENT EXCLUSIVE:
Mumbai: Groping a minor's breast without "skin to skin contact" cannot be termed as sexual assault as defined under the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the Bombay High Court has said.Justice Pushpa Ganediwala of the Nagpur bench of the Bombay High
Court, in a judgement passed on January 19, the detailed copy of which was made available now, held that there must be "skin to skin contact
of sexual assault.Justice Ganediwala 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.As per the prosecution and the minor victim's testimony in court, in December 2016,
the accused, one Satish, had taken the girl to his house in Nagpur on the pretext of giving her something to eat.Once there, he gripped 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, the high court held.While section 354 entails a minimum sentence of imprisonment for one year, sexual assault under the POCSO
Act entails a minimum imprisonment of three years.The sessions court had sentenced him to three years of imprisonment for the offences under
the POCSO Act and under IPC section 354
The sentences were to run concurrently
nature of punishment provided for the offence (under POCSO), in the opinion of this court, stricter proof and serious allegations are
required," HC 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.Justice Ganediwala further said in her verdict that "the act of pressing breast can be a criminal force to a woman/ girl with the
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".The court, in its verdict, 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
