1. High Court acquittal under Section 8, POCSO Act, 2012, based on absence of direct skin-to-skin physical contact to establish sexual intent. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 735
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.A. BOBDE, CJI., A.S. BOPANNA, V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, JJ.
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR INDIA - Petitioners
Vs.
SATISH & ANR. - Respondents
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) Diary No(s). 2286/2021
Decided on : 27-01-2021
Important Points
Interpretation of sexual intent under the POCSO Act and the potential impact of the judgment on setting legal precedents.
Subject
Criminal Law - POCSO Act
Act Referred
Headnote
POCSO Act - Acquittal under Section 8 - Lack of Sexual Intent - The court stayed the acquittal of the accused under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012, based on the ground that the accused had no sexual intent in committing the offense due to the absence of direct physical contact.
Fact of the Case:
The High Court acquitted the accused under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012, based on the absence of sexual intent due to no direct physical contact.
Finding of the Court:
The court stayed the acquittal and permitted the Attorney General to file a petition against the judgment, expressing concerns about setting a dangerous precedent.
Issues: Acquittal under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, lack of sexual intent, potential dangerous precedent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision to stay the acquittal was influenced by the concern that the judgment could set a dangerous precedent regarding the interpretation of sexual intent under the POCSO Act.
Final Decision: The court stayed the acquittal and issued notice to the accused and the State of Maharashtra, allowing the Attorney General to file a petition against the judgment.
Judgement Key Points
Key Points: - The court stayed the acquittal of the accused under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 due to concerns about lack of sexual intent without direct physical contact (!) (!) . - The Attorney General submitted that the judgment could set a dangerous precedent (!) (!) . - The court permitted the Attorney General to file a petition against the judgment (!) (!) . - The court issued notice to the accused and the State of Maharashtra returnable in two weeks (!) (!) . - The final decision was to stay the acquittal and allow the petition process to continue (!) (!) .
What is the interpretation of sexual intent under the POCSO Act when there is no direct physical contact?
What are the grounds for staying an acquittal under Section 8 of the POCSO Act?
What concerns led the court to consider the potential impact of the judgment on setting legal precedents?
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Ld. AG, Mr. Ankur Talwar, Adv.
For the Petitioners: Mr. K.K. Venugopal, Ld. AG, Mr. Ankur Talwar, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Contention that the High Court's interpretation of sexual intent requiring direct physical contact sets a dangerous precedent. (Para 2 )
3. The court noted the High Court's reasoning that lack of skin-to-skin contact indicates an absence of sexual intent under the POCSO Act. (Para 1 )
4. A judgment creating a potentially dangerous legal precedent may be stayed pending the filing and hearing of an appropriate petition. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
5. Permission granted to file a petition and stay granted on the acquittal under Section 8, POCSO Act. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
6. Whether the absence of direct skin-to-skin physical contact necessarily implies a lack of sexual intent under Section 8 of the POCSO Act?
The court stayed the acquittal based on this reasoning, suggesting that the High Court's conclusion that no sexual intent existed due to lack of skin-to-skin contact could set a dangerous precedent. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 )
ORDER :
1. Mr. K. K. Venugopal, learned Attorney General for India, made a mention, bringing to our notice a judgment dated 19.01.2021 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, in Criminal Appeal No.161/2020 wherein the High Court has apparently acquitted the accused under Section 8 of the POCSO Act, 2012 on the ground that the accused had no sexual intent in committing the offence under POCSO Act because there was no direct physical contact, i.e., skin to skin.
2. Mr. Venugopal, learned Attorney General, submitted that the judgment in question is likely to set a dangerous precedent.
3. In view of what is stated, we permit the learned Attorney General to file an appropriate petition against the said judgment.
4. In the meantime, we stay the acquittal of the accused in Criminal Appeal No.161/2020 in respect of the offence under section 8 of the POCSO Act.
5. Issue notice to the accused and the State of Maharashtra returnable two weeks.
Order accordingly.
