Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment where the Supreme Court overturned the controversial skin to skin contact verdict of the Bombay High Court. 
• The Judgment was delivered by a 3- judge Bench consisting of Justice Uday Umesh Lalit, Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice Bela M Trivedi. 

Facts   

• The Special Court convicted Satish under Sections 342, 354, 363 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). 
• On appeal, the High Court acquitted him of Section 8 of POCSO Act but maintained conviction under Sections 342 and 354 of IPC. 
• The victim in this case was a 12-year-old girl who had gone out to get guava. 
• The accused took her to his house, pressed her breast, tried to remove her salwar, and pressed her mouth when she tried to shout. 
• The accused then locked her in a room and bolted the door from outside. 
• The victim's mother found her daughter crying in the accused's house after hearing shouts from a room on the first floor. 
• When police arrived, the accused was attempting suicide by hanging himself. 
• The interpretations of the High Court lead to appeals by the Attorney General for India, the National Commision for Women and State of Maharashtra. 
• The interpretation given by the Bombay High Court lead to great controversy. 
• Hence, the matter was before the Supreme Court. 

Issues Involved  

• Whether skin to skin contact is essential to constitute an offence under Section 7 of the POCSO Act? 

Observations 

• The main controversy in this case revolved around the interpretation of Section 7 of POCSO Act. 
•  The Court reiterated the principle of statutory interpretation that the Court should strive to ascertain the intention of the Legislature enacting the legislation and interpret the provision according to the intention. 
• The object of the POCSO Act as evident from the objects and reasons is to adequately penalize the offences against children. 
• The Court further observed that Section 7 of POCSO Act consists of two parts: 
  • The first part of the Section mentions about touching the specific sexual parts of the body with sexual intent. 
  • The second part of the Section mentions about “any other act” done with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration.
• With respect to the above provision the Court held that the word “touch” has been specifically with regard to the sexual parts of the body whereas the word “physical contact” has been used for any other act. 
• Therefore, the act of touching the sexual part of body or any other act involving physical contact, if done with “sexual intent” would amount to “sexual assault” within the meaning of Section 7 of the POCSO Act. 
• The Court also took help of the doctrine “Ut Res Magis Valeat Quam Pereat” which means that the construction of a rule should give effect to the rule rather than destroying it. 
• Restricting the interpretation of the words “touch” or “physical contact” to “skin to skin contact” would be narrow and pedantic interpretation and would lead to an absurd result. 
• Thus, the Court categorically held that the most important ingredient for constituting the offence of sexual assault under Section 7 of POCSO Act is “sexual intent” and not the “skin to skin” contact with the child. 
• Thus, the Court held that the High Court erred in holding that for the purpose of constituting an offence under Section 7 of POCSO Act there has to be direct physical contact i.e. “skin to skin” with sexual intent. 
• Accordingly, the Court convicted the accused under Section 8 of POCSO Act and Section 342, 354 and 363 of the IPC. 

Conclusion 

• The Court in this case finally in this case overturned the controversial “skin to skin” requirement under Section 7 of POCSO Act laid down by the Bombay High Court. 
• The Court held that the most important ingredient for constituting the offence under Section 7 of POCSO Act is “sexual intent” and not “skin to skin” contact.