At the hearing today, counsel for the petitioner, advocate Sriram Parakkat stressed that the case was one of penetrative sexual assault, and the survivor had made it clear in her depositions that she was poked at the place from which she urinates.
“Kuthi definitely means insert [here],” he said.
Justice Gavai then remarked that this aspect was already settled in the decision of the Supreme Court that had set aside a controversial Bombay High Court judgment which held that pressing the breast of a child without removing her clothes will not amount to ‘sexual assault’ under Section 7 of the POCSO Act since there was no “skin-to-skin” contact.
The Collegium had subsequently refused to recommend that the additional judge who had authored that judgment be made permanent, the bench pointed out.
The counsel for the respondent also sought to make submissions but the Court did not entertain it.
“Are you seriously contesting this petition? The High Court says you have done it. The hymen is torn. And she is 12! The grandmother makes the complaint“, Justice Karol said.
After the bench then noted that the convict has served the sentence and around 75 years old, it declined to interfere with the High Court’s order.
While stating that the question of law is kept open, the bench indicated that the accused could not be charged for any other offence in the matter at this stage.
Besides Parakkat, advocate Alim Anwar appeared for the petitioner.
Source: Barandbench
