Index

1. What Is POCSO? 
2. What Are The Differences Between The POCSO Act of 2012 and the Amendments In 2017?
3. Can A Woman Be Charged With Penetrative Sexual Assault Under The POCSO Act?
4. How Did The Court Respond To The Argument Of Women In Penetrative Sexual Assault?
5. What Are The Additional Aspects Looked Into Before The High Court Ruling?
6. How Does The Delhi High Court’s Ruling Influence Public Perception?

What Is POCSO? 

The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), enacted in 2012, aims to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation. It defines various forms of sexual offences against minors, establishes Special Courts for speedy trials, and mandates the reporting of such offences. The Act is gender-neutral and applies to all children under 18. 

What Are The Differences Between The POCSO Act of 2012 and the Amendments In 2017?

1. Definition of Offences: The 2017 amendments provided explicit definitions for various offences, including child pornography, which was not clearly defined in the original Act.
2. Increased Penalties: The amendments introduced harsher penalties, including the death penalty for aggravated sexual assault cases involving children.
3. Mandatory Reporting: The 2017 amendments emphasised mandatory reporting of offences, making it a punishable offence for individuals or institutions to fail to report suspected abuse.
4. Child-Friendly Procedures: Enhanced provisions for child-friendly procedures during investigations and trials were included to reduce trauma for child victims

Can A Woman Be Charged With Penetrative Sexual Assault Under The POCSO Act?

Yes, a woman can be charged with the offence of penetrative sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The Delhi High Court clarified this in a ruling on August 9, 2024 while addressing a plea by a female accused who argued that the charges of “penetrative sexual assault” and “aggravated penetrative sexual assault” could not be applied to her because she is a woman.

How Did The Court Respond To The Argument Of Women In Penetrative Sexual Assault? 

The court rejected this argument, emphasising that the POCSO Act is a gender-neutral legislation designed to protect children from sexual offences, irrespective of the perpetrator’s gender. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, who delivered the judgement, stated that the term “person” in Section 3 of the POCSO Act should not be interpreted as referring only to men. He further explained that the word “he” in the Act should not be read restrictively to imply that it pertains solely to male offenders, but rather should be understood to include any offender, regardless of gender. Consequently, the court ruled that the accused woman could indeed be tried for the offences as charged under the POCSO Act.

What Are The Additional Aspects Looked Into Before The High Court Ruling? 

In a significant legal ruling, the court determined that the offense of “aggravated penetrative sexual assault” can indeed apply to a woman. The court’s decision came after an initial examination of the evidence, where it was concluded that the petitioner, despite being female, could still be charged under these provisions. The court emphasised that the legal definition of penetrative sexual assault includes the insertion of any object or body part, manipulation of a body part to cause penetration, or the use of the mouth. Therefore, the law does not exclusively refer to penetration by a penis, making it clear that women can also commit and be prosecuted for this crime. Consequently, the court ruled that the petitioner must undergo trial for the offences charged and dismissed her petition.

How Does The Delhi High Court’s Ruling Influence Public Perception?

1. Increased Awareness: The ruling highlights that sexual offences against children can be committed by individuals of any gender, raising awareness about the issue of female perpetrators.
2. Gender Neutrality: By reinforcing the gender-neutral interpretation of the POCSO Act, the court promotes the idea that accountability for sexual offenses is universal, potentially reducing stigma around female offenders.
3. Legal Clarity: The decision clarifies the law’s application, which may enhance public confidence in the legal system’s ability to protect children from all offenders, regardless of gender.
4. Encouragement to Report: This ruling might encourage more victims and witnesses to report incidents without fear of gender biases in legal proceedings, fostering a more supportive environment for addressing child sexual abuse.
5. Challenging Stereotypes: It challenges societal stereotypes that view sexual offences as predominantly male acts, potentially shifting cultural narratives surrounding gender and violence.