Referring to Supreme Court’s rulings, the court said the apex court has repeatedly said modesty, in the context of Section 354 of IPC, must be interpreted in light of the dignity and bodily autonomy of a woman, or a minor girl. File
| Photo Credit: The Hindu

The Delhi High Court has said in the absence of sexually motivated advances, touching and pressing the minor girl’s lips and sleeping next to her cannot attract prosecution for “aggravated sexual assault” under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed the acts might violate her dignity and outrage her modesty but without “overt or inferred sexual intent” would fall short of meeting the legal threshold required to sustain a charge under section 10 (aggravated sexual assault) of POCSO Act.

The court, in its February 24 judgment, however, ruled that there was a clear prima facie case under Section 354 of IPC for ‘‘assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty”.

The court’s decision came while adjudicating the plea of the uncle of a minor girl against framing of charges under Section 354 IPC and Section 10 of POCSO Act against him. The court sustained the charge under Section 354 but discharged him under Section 10 of the POCSO Act.

The girl had alleged her paternal uncle of touching and pressing her lips and sleeping/lying down next to her, which had made her feel uncomfortable.

Referring to Supreme Court’s rulings, the court said the apex court has repeatedly said modesty, in the context of Section 354 of IPC, must be interpreted in light of the dignity and bodily autonomy of a woman, or a minor girl.

“(However) the victim has not alleged any act of an overtly sexual nature, nor has she suggested in any of her recorded statements – whether before the Magistrate, the police or CWC (Child Welfare Committee) – that she was subjected to sexual assault or that there was even an attempt to commit such an offence… the absence of even the slightest indication of a sexually motivated advance in the statements of the victim negates the foundational requirement of ‘sexual intent’, which is an essential element of an offence under Section 10 of POCSO Act,” it added.

The minor girl, the court noted, was abandoned by her mother at a young age and lived at a child care institution. She was visiting her family at the time of the incident, it noted.

The court observed in a scenario when the child was seeking familial warmth and security, any inappropriate physical contact by a family member in a position of trust was far more than just discomforting – a clear violation of her dignity, bodily autonomy, and modesty.

Even a minimal physical contact, when done with an intent or with the knowledge that it was likely to outrage modesty, was sufficient to invoke Section 354 of IPC, it said.