The gender-neutral POCSO Act was passed in 2012 and defines a child as anybody under the age of 18. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 does not acknowledge that boys can also be the victims of sexual assault. The definition of a sexual offense against a child in the Act of 2012 is extremely broad. The term “sexual assault” is further broadened to include both “non-penetrative” and “aggravated penetrative” assault (Sections 3-10). Penalties for people in positions of trust, such as public employees, teachers, and police officers, are also included.
In order to make the criminal justice system more kid-friendly and to stop re-traumatization, the POCSO Act also introduced measures. This covers all aspects, including the medical examination, the recording of the child’s statement, and the designation of particular child-friendly courts. The reader of this article will become familiar with some of the important rulings made under the POCSO Act of 2012, which will give them a better understanding of how the aforementioned statute is being put into practice.
Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2013), State of Karnataka v. Shivanna (2014), Attorney General for India v. Satish and another (2021), and Nipun Saxena v. Union of India (2019) are notable cases arising under the POCSO Act. The Supreme Court of India found Jarnail Singh guilty of abducting and raping Savitri Devi’s daughter when she was fast asleep. In Attorney General for India v. Satish and Others (2021), the Supreme Court noted that courts must consistently interpret the law to prevent injury and advance the remedy. The ruling stated that grabbing a child’s breasts without having “skin-to-skin contact” was considered molestation. The Apex Court issued instructions to safeguard the identities of people who have been the victims of violations of Section 23 of the POCSO Act. FIRs must not be made public, and victims’ names must not be published in print, electronic, or social media.
A victim’s appeal will be processed in accordance with the law if one is filed. All documents that reveal the victim’s identify must be maintained in a sealed container. The most crucial information in this text is that all authorities to whom the victim’s name is given must keep the victim’s name and identity a secret, and that a request from the victim’s next of kin to authorize the disclosure of the identity of a deceased victim or a victim of unsound mind should only be made to the Sessions Judge in question. Additionally, it was mandated that within a year of the judgment date, all States and Union Territories establish at least one “One-Stop Center” in each district.
The Bombay High Court ruled that groping without “skin to skin” contact does not constitute a sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act. The Supreme Court had suspended the High Court’s order, ruling that sexual intent was the key component of sexual assault as defined by the POCSO Act. This ruling is likely to set a dangerous precedent. The POCSO Act has many shortcomings, such as lack of special public prosecutors and exclusive “special” courts, investigational gaps, lack of victim support and protection, and procedure errors.
To address these issues, it is important to adhere to child-friendly processes, strengthen investigation and prosecution, and protect children when they report sexual offenses. Investments in infrastructure, people, training, and a witness protection program are needed to provide support and protection to child survivors.
Name: Sarah Garima Tigga, College: Symbiosis Law School (Pune)
