Case Study: Satish S/o Bandu Ragde v. State of Maharashtra

“In absence of any specific detail as to whether the

Case Study: Satish S/o Bandu Ragde v. State of Maharashtra

“In absence of any specific detail as to whether the top was removed or not, ‘pressing of breast’ would not fall within the definition of ‘sexual assault’ as defined under Section 7 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.”

Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 161 of 2020

Date of Judgement: 19th January, 2021

Bench: Pushpa V. Ganediwala (J)

Facts:

On 14th December, 2016, FIR was lodged against appellant by victim’s mother claiming appellant took her daughter (aged 12 years) in his house and pressed her breast and attempted to remove her salwar. When she searched for her daughter, she was found crying in the first floor of accused house whose door was locked.

Decision of the Special Court:

Court found the accused guilty of the crimes under Section 354, 363, 342 of Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Accused was sentenced for rigorous imprisonment and fine. However, court acquitted the accused of the offence punishable under Section 309 Indian Penal Code.

Decision of the Bombay High Court:

Appeal was partly allowed by acquitting the appellant under Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and convicted him under Section 354 and Section 342 of IPC.

Key law points discussed in the case:

  • Whether the ‘pressing of breast’ and ‘attempt to remove salwar’ could fall within the definition of ‘sexual assault’ as defined under Section 7 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012?

No

The words ‘any other act’ in Section 7 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 means act which are similar to the acts specifically mentioned on the basis of the principle of ‘ejusdem generis’. In the present case, there is no direct contact i.e., skin to skin with sexual intent without penetration.

Considering the nature of punishment under Section 8 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, court opined that stricter proof and serious allegations are required. In absence of any specific detail as to whether the top was removed or not, ‘pressing of breast’ would not fall within the definition of ‘sexual assault’ as defined under Section 7 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. But this would certainly fall under Section 354 Indian Penal Code.

Case Study: State of HP v. Jai Lal & Ors.
Case Study: State of HP v. Jai Lal & Ors.
Expert evidence must rely on scientific methodology, adequately explained and backed by credible data, allowing courts to independently evaluate its accuracy and reliability
Case Study: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy & Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) & Ors.
Case Study: Justice K.S. Puttaswamy & Ors. v. Union of India (UOI) & Ors.
In Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the Supreme Court affirmed privacy as a fundamental right under Article 21, integral to dignity and autonomy, yet subject to reasonable restrictions.
Case Study: Rustom Cavasjee Cooper and Ors. v. Union of India
Case Study: Rustom Cavasjee Cooper and Ors. v. Union of India
In Rustom Cavasjee Cooper v. Union of India, the Supreme Court invalidated the 1969 bank nationalization act, citing inadequate compensation and violation of property rights, thus breaching Articles 14, 19, and 31.
Powered by Lit Law
New Chat
Sources

Ask Lit Law