In another shocking judgment, a special POCSO special court on Tuesday acquitted a 28-year-old technician who was accused of molesting a five-year-old girl. The incident dates back to 2017, when the accused went to the victim’s house on the pretext of fixing a broken fridge. The court ruled that touching a child’s cheek without any sexual intent is not a crime.
According to News18, recalling the incident, the mother claimed that the technician came to her house in the afternoon to look at the broken refrigerator. The accused discovered the problem and went out to pick up some belongings. When he returned he began to spurs the cheek of the woman’s five-year-old daughter. The mother objected to this and left her to fix a malfunction in the washing machine and went to the kitchen.
While she was working in the kitchen, the accused came from behind and hugged. The mother pushed him away but he did not listen. The woman then gave him the money and asked him to leave. But he grabbed her neck and tried to pull the pass and spurs the child’s cheek again. Despite several attempts, when the accused refused to leave the house, he called his supervisor to file a complaint. The police came and arrested the accused, but he was soon granted bail.
After hearing the petition of the 33-year-old woman, the court sentenced the accused to one year for molesting the mother, while on the charges of sexual harassment of molesting the child, the court acquitted him saying Touching the cheek is not a crime. Explain that a similar case had recently come up before the Bombay High Court in which the accused was acquitted. There was a lot of ruckus about it.
The National Commission for Women (NCW) has challenged the Bombay High Court judgment in the Supreme Court, which said that hand-over the chest of a minor girl on the chest of a minor girl cannot be considered a sexual assault under the Poxo Act. Skin-to-skin contact with sexual intent is necessary for sexual assault. The apex court bench headed by Chief Justice SA Bobde stayed the aforesaid judgment of the High Court on 27 January.
