In Brief
The Supreme Court held that 'sexual assault' under Section 7 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act does not require 'skin to skin contact' but includes touching through clothing with sexual intent. The Court restored convictions of two accused – Satish for sexual assault under Section 8 (3 years RI) and Libnus for aggravated sexual assault under Section 10 (5 years RI) – quashing High Court acquittals. The judgment adopts purposive interpretation, emphasizing that legislation must suppress the 'mischief' of inadequate child protection. Sexual intent, not direct bodily contact, is the essential element of the offence. The judgment rejected the Rule of Lenity and narrow application of ejusdem generis, affirming that Parliament's intent to protect children cannot be defeated by technical reading.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.