The Delhi High Court has ruled that pressing the lips of a minor and lying close to her may amount to the offence of outraging her modesty under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, the court held that such an act would not amount to aggravated sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act unless an overt sexual intent is evident.
Key Observations by the Court
The court noted that acts such as touching or pressing a minor’s lips and lying close to her may violate a woman’s dignity and modesty.
However, in the absence of any explicit or inferred sexual intent, these acts do not meet the legal standard required for a charge under Section 10 of the POCSO Act.
Case Background
The accused, the paternal uncle of a 12-year-old girl, allegedly engaged in inappropriate conduct during the victim’s four-day visit to her grandmother’s house.
The petitioner was charged under Section 354 of IPC (outraging modesty of a woman) and Section 10 of the POCSO Act (aggravated sexual assault).
High Court’s Decision
The court upheld the trial court’s decision to frame charges under Section 354 of IPC but discharged the accused from the POCSO charge (Section 10).
It emphasized that even minimal physical contact can invoke Section 354 of IPC, provided it is done with intent or knowledge of outraging modesty.
However, since the victim did not allege any overt sexual act or intent, the court ruled that Section 10 of POCSO was not applicable.
Criticism of Trial Court’s Order
The High Court also criticized the trial court for passing a “non-speaking” order while framing charges under the POCSO Act. The court observed:
The trial court’s order lacked reasoning and failed to explain how it concluded that the accused committed an offence under Section 10 of POCSO.
Cryptic and proforma orders on charge, especially in sexual assault cases, hinder appellate courts from understanding the trial judge’s reasoning.
The court urged trial judges to provide well-reasoned orders addressing arguments from both sides instead of passing brief, four-line rulings.
Conclusion
The ruling highlights the importance of establishing sexual intent in POCSO cases while reaffirming that even minimal physical contact can constitute outraging modesty under IPC. It also underscores the need for trial courts to provide detailed and reasoned judicial orders to ensure clarity in legal proceedings.
