ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR INDIA versus SATISH AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2021] 10 S.C.R. 955 · Decided: 18-11-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
955
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR INDIA
v.
SATISH AND ANOTHER
(Criminal Appeal No. 1410 of 2021)
NOVEMBER 18, 2021
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, BELA M. TRIVEDI
AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012:
s. 7 –”sexual assault” –Words touch and physical contact –
Interpretation of – Held: Both the said words “touch” and “physical
contact”have been interchangeably used in s. 7 by the legislature –
Word “touch” has been used specifically with regard to the sexual
parts of the body, whereas the word “physical contact” has been
used for any other act – Thus, 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 s. 7 – Expression “sexual intent” having not been explained in s.
7, it cannot be confined to any predetermined format or structure
and that it would be a question of fact – However, the expression
‘physical contact’ used in s. 7 cannot be construed as ‘skin to skin’
contact – Restricting the interpretation of the words “touch” or
“physical contact” to “skin to skin contact” would not only be a
narrow and pedantic interpretation of s. 7 but an absurd
interpretation of s. 7 which would lead to a very detrimental
situation, frustrating the very object of the Act inasmuch as in that
case touching the sexual or non sexual parts of the body of a child
with gloves, condoms, sheets or with cloth, though done with sexual
intent would not amount to an offence of sexual assault u/s. 7–
“Skin to skin contact” for constituting an offence of “sexual assault”
could not have been intended or contemplated by the Legislature –
Most important ingredient for constituting the offence of sexual
assault u/s. 7 is “sexual intent” and not “skin to skin” contact with
the child.
ss. 7, 8 – Offence of sexual assault – Allegation against
accused S that he lured a 12 year old girl to his house, and pressed
her breast and tried to remove her salwar and when the victim tried
   [2021] 10 S.C.R. 955
955
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
956
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 10 S.C.R.
to shout, the accused pressed her mouth – Special court convicted
and sentenced the accused for offences u/ss. 342, 354 and 363
IPC and s. 8 – In appeal, the High Court acquitted the accused for
the offence u/s. 8 and convicted him for the offence u/s. 342 and
354 IPC – On appeal, held: High Court erred in holding that the
act of pressing of breast of the child aged 12 years in absence of
any specific details as to whether the top was removed or whether
he inserted his hands inside the top and pressed her breast, would
not fall in the definition of sexual assault, but within the definition
of offence u/s. 354 IPC; and that there was no offence since there
was no direct physical contact- “skin to skin” with sexual intent –
Whoever, with sexual intent touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast
of the child or makes the child touch the vagina, penis, anus or
breast of such person or any other person, would be committing an
offence of “sexual assault” – Similarly, whoever does any other
act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without
penetration, would also be committing the offence of “sexual
assault” u/s. 7 – Prosecution was not required to prove a “skin to
skin” contact for proving the charge of sexual assault u/s. 7 –
Allegation of sexual intent stood proved by the prosecution – All
these acts were the acts of “sexual assault” as contemplated u/s. 7,
punishable u/s. 8 –Thus, the order passed by the High Court set
aside and that of the trial court restored.
ss. 8 and 10 r/w s. 9(m) and 12 – Allegation against accused
L that he went to the house of the victim aged 5 years when no one
was there, and caught the hand of the victim, moved her frock upward
with one hand and lowered her pant with the other hand, and
thereafter, unzipped his pant and showed his penis to her and asked
her to lay down on the cot – When the mother of the victim returned,
she saw one person had caught the hand of the victim and also saw
the victim raising her pant – Special Court convicted and sentenced
the accused for offences punishable u/s. 448 and 354-A(1)(i) IPC
and ss. 8 and 10 r/w s. 9(m) and 12 – High Court upheld the
conviction u/ss. 448 and 354-A(1)(i) IPC rw s.12 of the POCSO,
however, set aside the conviction u/ss. 8 and 10 and modified the
sentence to the extent already undergone – On appeal, held: When
the alleged acts of entering the house

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.