POCSO Act is Gender Neutral

Source: Karnataka High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice M Nagaprasanna held that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) is gender-neutral, its provisions under Sections 4 and 6 apply equally to men and women, and therefore the petition seeking quashment of proceedings stands dismissed. 

• The Karnataka High Court held this in the matter of Smt. Archana Patil v. State of Karnataka (2025). 

What was the Background of Smt. Archana Patil v. State Of Karnataka (2025) Case ? 

• The complainant (Respondent No.2) was residing in a villa community in Bengaluru with her husband and two children, including her son (the victim), who was about 13 years old in 2020. 
• Their neighbour, the petitioner, an established artist, lived in the same community and often interacted with children by offering art lessons. The victim also started visiting her house frequently. 
• In mid-2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the family shifted to Dubai. While there, the boy displayed psychological and behavioural changes over a period of four years. 
• When confronted by his mother, he disclosed incidents of alleged sexual abuse by the petitioner, stating that she had called him to her house repeatedly between February and June 2020, engaged in inappropriate acts, compelled him to perform sexual intercourse, and threatened him not to disclose it. 
• On returning to India in 2024, the complainant lodged a police complaint alleging sexual assault. FIR was registered under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 
• The police investigated, recorded statements under Section 164 CrPC, and filed a charge sheet. Cognizance was taken by the trial court. The petitioner then approached the High Court under Section 482 CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) seeking quashing of the FIR and proceedings, contending that offences under Sections 4 and 6 POCSO cannot be alleged against a woman 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that POCSO Act, is a gender-neutral statute, intended to safeguard all children, irrespective of sex, from sexual offences. 
• It was held that the use of the word “person” in Section 3 of the Act is deliberate, and therefore the provisions are not confined to acts by a male upon a female but extend to any person committing an offence upon a child, whether male or female. 
• The Court clarified that though the provision employs the pronoun “he”, by virtue of Section 2(2) of the POCSO Act read with Section 8 of the Indian Penal Code, the term “he” includes both genders, and thus, a woman can be an accused for an offence under Sections 4 and 6. 
• It was further observed that Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the Act are drafted broadly to include not only direct penetration by a male but also situations where a child is induced, coerced, or compelled to perform penetrative sexual acts. In such circumstances, the gender of the perpetrator is irrelevant. 
• The Court rejected the contention that only a man can commit penetrative sexual assault, holding that the decisive factor is the commission of the act upon a child, and not the gender of the offender. 
• The Court held that the legislative intent behind the Act, strengthened by the 2019 amendment, is to provide equal protection to boys and girls below 18 years of age, and to punish any person committing a sexual offence upon a child. 
• It was held that allegations in the complaint and the statement of the victim, if accepted on their face value, disclose the essential ingredients of penetrative sexual assault and aggravated penetrative sexual assault, as defined under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act. 
• The Court further observed that the delay in lodging the complaint cannot by itself be a ground to quash proceedings, as psychological trauma and fear often result in late disclosure of such offences. 
• It was concluded that the offences under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act can validly be alleged against a woman, and that the matter requires adjudication in trial rather than termination at the threshold. 

How is the POCSO Act Gender Neutral? 

• The POCSO Act was enacted to protect all children, i.e., any person below 18 years of age, from sexual offences, regardless of whether the child is male or female. 
• The Act employs the term “a person” in defining offences, which is inclusive of both men and women. 
• Though certain provisions use the pronoun “he”, Section 2(2) of POCSO, read with Section 8 of the Indian Penal Code, clarifies that “he” includes both male and female. 
• Judicial interpretation, including by the Karnataka High Court and Delhi High Court, has affirmed that the Act applies equally to men and women, thereby making the POCSO Act gender neutral. 
• The legislative intent, strengthened by the 2019 amendment, is to ensure that all children, irrespective of gender, are equally protected from sexual offences and that any person, irrespective of gender, may be held liable for committing such offences. 

What is Section 4 and Section 6 of the Act ? 

Section 4 – Punishment for Penetrative Sexual Assault 

• Section 4 provides that whoever commits penetrative sexual assault shall be punished with imprisonment of not less than ten years, which may extend to life imprisonment, and shall also be liable to fine. 
• Where the penetrative sexual assault is committed on a child below sixteen years of age, the punishment shall be rigorous imprisonment of not less than twenty years, which may extend to imprisonment for the remainder of natural life of the offender, along with fine. 
• The fine imposed is required to be just, reasonable, and paid to the victim to meet medical expenses and rehabilitation. 

Section 6 – Punishment for Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault 

• Section 6 prescribes punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault, i.e., when the offence under Section 3 is committed in aggravated circumstances defined under Section 5. 
• The punishment shall be rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than twenty years, which may extend to imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life of the offender, and the offender shall also be liable to fine or with death penalty in extreme cases. 
• The fine under Section 6 is also directed to be just, reasonable, and paid to the victim for medical expenses and rehabilitation.