Recently we have seen the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, after Bombay High Court Justice Pushpa Ganediwala’s controversial judgments in child sexual abuse cases.
The POCSO Act enacted in 2012 and is gender neutral, recognises that boys can be victims of sexual violence as well. It defines a child as someone under the age of 18. The Act also increased the scope of reporting sexual crimes against children.
The POCSO Act was enacted in 2012 and is gender neutral, it recognises that boys can be victims of sexual violence as well. It defines a child as someone under the age of 18. The Indian Penal Code does not recognise that sexual assault can be committed on boys.
The Act also increased the scope of reporting sexual crimes against children. It expanded the definition of sexual assault to include non-penetrative sexual assault as well as aggravated penetrative sexual assault (sections 3 to 10), and also included punishment for persons in positions of trust of authority like public servants, staff of educational institutions, police etc.
Notably, this law recognises sexual harassment of a child which involves touch, and also that which doesn’t (sections 11 and 12), such as stalking, making a child expose themselves or exposing themselves to a child, and so on.
The POCSO Act also specifically lays down stringent punishment for exposing children to, or using them to create child sexual abuse material (CSAM, also referred to as child pornography) under sections 13, 14, and 15.
Sections of the POCSO Act may be added by the police in the First Information Report (FIR) whenever a sexual offence is committed against a child.
While special laws override the IPC, sections of both are often mentioned in the FIR. For instance, an FIR would book an accused under section 376 (rape) of the IPC as well as relevant sections of the POCSO Act.
In the case of Satish Ragde v. State of Maharashtra, Bombay High Court acquitted the accused under the POCSO Act.
The Court stated its ground that the accused groped the victim over her clothes and there was no skin to skin contact i.e. physical contact with the victim.
The Supreme Court ordered a stay on the acquittal of the accused.
