Attorney General K K Venugopal on Tuesday asked the Supreme Court to overturn the Bombay High Court's judgement which held that sexual assault offences under the POCSO would not be attracted if there was no direct 'skin to skin' contact between the accused and the child.
Calling the verdict a "dangerous and outrageous precedent", he contended before a bench of Justices U U Lalit and Ajay Rastogi that the judgment would mean that a man who sexually abused a child after wearing a pair of surgical gloves will be acquitted.
"If tomorrow a person wears a pair of surgical gloves and feels the entire body of a woman, he won't be punished for sexual assault as per this judgment. This is outrageous. Saying that skin-to-skin contact is required would mean a person wearing gloves getting an acquittal. The judge clearly didn't see the far-reaching consequences," he said.
Justice Pushpa Ganediwala of the HC's Nagpur Bench had acquitted an accused observing that groping of the breasts of a minor girl over her clothes will not amount to the offence of 'sexual assault' under Section 8 of the POCSO.
Maintaining that there should be 'skin to skin' contact to attract the offence, the High Court held that the act in question will only amount to a lesser offence of 'molestation' under Section 354 IPC.
Also read: Bombay HC judge who delivered controversial verdicts gets 1 year fresh term as additional judge
The Attorney General said that the High Court's judgment was contrary to the legislative intent.
"There are 43,000 POCSO offences in the last one year," the A-G said.
He was arguing on the appeal filed by him against the High Court's judgment.
Maharashtra's counsel supported the A-G's arguments.
The state government's appeal against another controversial judgment of the Bombay High Court was also put before the top court. The HC had then held that the act of holding a minor girl's hands and opening the zip of pants would not come under the definition of "sexual assault" under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
As no counsel appeared for the accused, the bench directed the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee to make available the services of two senior advocates along with Advocates-on-Record from its panel to represent the accused in both the appeals.
The matters have been posted for final hearing on September 14.