POCSO doesn't brook dilution

Context: The gaps in Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act were evident from the Bombay High Court's recent judgment in Satish Ragde v. the State of Maharashtra.

Background to the case: The Bench acquitted a man found guilty of assault because he groped his victim over her clothes and there was no skin­to­skin contact between them. (no provisions under POCSO).

• Sexual Offences Act 2003 of the U.K. says that touching (with sexual intent) includes touching with any part of the body, with anything else or through anything. 

Reasons for the enactment of POCSO Act in 2012: To protect Children (below 18) from sexual assault

• To fill the gaps in-laws: The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act admitted that most sexual offences against children were neither provided for in extant laws nor adequately penalized. 
• To fulfil International commitments: United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by India in 1992 requires sexual exploitation and abuse to be addressed as heinous crimes.
• To create effective deterrence: Through commensurate penalties and explicit provisions (as compared to the Indian Penal Code (IPC)).
  • Section 7 of the POCSO Act, says that whoever with sexual intent touches the child's breast is said to commit sexual assault.

Improvements made in POCSO in comparison to Indian Penal Code (IPC) 

• More severe punishments under POCSO:  Section 8 of the POCSO provides minimum imprisonment of 3 years for sexual assault, 
  • While Section 354 of the IPC lays down a minimum of one-year imprisonment for outraging a woman's modesty.
• Clearer Definitions: The acts of ‘sexual assault’ are explicitly mentioned in POCSO. In contrast, the definition of ‘assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty’ in the IPC is generic.
  • In Vishaka v. State of Rajasthan (1997), the Supreme Court held that the offence relating to the modesty of woman could not be treated as trivial. 
• POCSO is specific for the protection of children: while IPC provides punishment for the offence irrespective of any age of the victim.

Conclusion: In the absence of any specific provision in the POCSO which requires skin-to-skin touch as a mandatory element of an offence, any interpretation which dilutes protection must be declared ultra vires.