In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has stated that in the absence of sexually motivated advances, actions such as touching, pressing a minor girl's lips, or sleeping next to her do not meet the legal threshold to attract a charge under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

The ruling came in response to a case filed by a 12-year-old minor girl against her paternal uncle. While the court acknowledged that such actions could violate the child's dignity and outrage her modesty, it emphasized that without an overt or inferred sexual intent, the actions do not qualify as an offense under Section 10 of the POCSO Act.

Court’s Observations on Sexual Intent

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, while delivering the verdict, made a clear distinction between actions that outrage modesty and those that constitute sexual offenses under POCSO. The court noted that:

• The victim did not specifically assert that the accused's actions were sexually motivated.
• There was no sexual intent inferred from any of the statements made before the magistrate, police, or Child Welfare Committee (CWC).
• The absence of a "sexually motivated advance" negated the foundational requirement needed to invoke Section 10 of POCSO Act.

Despite this, the court ruled that the accused could still be charged under Section 354 of the IPC, which deals with assault or criminal force with intent to outrage a woman’s modesty.

Case Background and Legal Ruling

The case involved a minor girl who was abandoned by her mother at a young age and was living in a child care institution. The alleged incident occurred when she was visiting her family.

The paternal uncle had been accused of touching and pressing the minor’s lips and lying next to her, which made her feel uncomfortable. However, the court noted that the victim did not mention any explicitly sexual conduct in any of her recorded statements.

Based on this, the court made the following legal determinations:

• The charge under Section 10 of POCSO Act was dropped, as there was no clear sexual intent behind the alleged acts.
• The charge under Section 354 of IPC was upheld, since even minimal physical contact with the knowledge that it could outrage a woman’s modesty is enough to invoke this section.

Impact of the Ruling on Child Protection Laws

The judgment highlights the importance of proving sexual intent when applying POCSO Act provisions. However, it also acknowledges that inappropriate actions—especially by a trusted family member—can still amount to violating a child’s dignity and bodily autonomy, which is punishable under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Furthermore, the ruling underscores the need for careful judicial reasoning in framing charges. The court criticized trial courts for issuing "cryptic, non-speaking, proforma orders" that lack proper reasoning.

It stressed that when an accused is facing potential incarceration, courts must clearly explain why a particular charge is being framed, instead of issuing mechanical, one-line orders.

The Delhi High Court’s decision is a critical interpretation of the POCSO Act and IPC. While it clarifies that sexual intent is essential for a POCSO offense, it also reinforces that violating a child's dignity and modesty can still lead to criminal charges under IPC provisions.

This ruling is expected to set a precedent for similar cases in the future, ensuring that courts take a balanced and nuanced approach in handling sensitive child protection cases.