Hello Friends, Skin-to-Skin Contact Judgment…
This explanation is about the POCSO Act and Sexual offenses. “Skin to Skin Contact Judgment “In it, I am going to explain the three important topics together. The first is SATISH RAGASE V. STATE OF MAHARASTRA.
The second is, ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR INDIA V. SATISH AND ANR . and the third is APARNA BHAT V. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH. So our first case is Satish Ragase v. the State of Maharastra. This is the judgment of the Bombay High Court of Nagpur Bench.
In this case, The accusation occurs about the cropping of a 12-year-old at the time of listening to this case the judge of Nagpur Bench ” Pushpa Ganediwala ” said that the top is not removed from the body of that girl. It is not Skin Skin Contact Judgment.
This means there is no skin-to-skin contact. So that’s why this is not considered a sexual assault. And under this statement, the accused is only punished under Section 354 IPC ( Outraging the modest ). Not punished under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act.
This judgment is interpreted very narrowly. That’s why the National Commission of India files the petition of ATTIRE GENERAL FOR INDIA V. SATISH AND ANR. under this it is important to see the intent of sexual offense, no skin-to-skin contact. Under this topic, the latest case is from Madhya Pradesh ” ATTIRE GENERAL FOR INDIA V. SATISH AND ANR“.
In this case, the issue is the Nabor of the victim. And in a Court, the case is – outrage the modesty of women. At the time of giving a Bail, the court of Madhya Pradesh set one condition.
And it was asked to assume to ask the person to tie the Rakhi. and the Court said that at the time of judgment we have to avoid Sterotupical Opinions. And with it at the time of decisions of sexual offices cases what guidelines should be followed let’s see.
First of all – The Court mandated a module as a part of the fundamental training of every judge.
Second – Bar Council of India was directed to include gender sensitization in the curriculum of LLB & AIBE.
Third – High Court to ensure the sensitivity of judges while hearing cases related to sexual offenses.
So it’s the second case of an important judgment.
