Get the latest
Fashion, Beauty & Shopping News



Special POCSO Court Rules That Posterior Will Be Included In Private Parts As Far As Indian Society Is Concerned, Despite What Google Cites.

By  | 

So habituated to resorting to Google for any query that we might have, we have started to believe that it has all the answers, even for questions that apparently get asked in the court of law. And while Google may be pretty perspicacious when it comes to offering insight or answers, what it might often overlook is how subjective something might be to a particular society. Case in point, the definition of private parts in the Indian society that, according to the POCSO Court, will include the posterior of a person.

In a judgement passed by a special POCSO court, the bench observed a man to be guilty and sentenced him to five years in jail after he touched a ten year old girl’s posterior and argued that it didn’t come under the definition of private. Stating that the term ‘private parts’ should be interpreted in the context of what it means in our society, the special court mentioned that posterior would fall into the category as far as Indians were concerned.

This, after the accused, in his defence, argued that since the child has stated that he touched her private parts, and posterior did not fit that definition, he shouldn’t be charged under the POCSO act. However, much to our surprise and liking, the court did not let the accused off of such a technicality.

Also Read : Woman Sends Condoms To Justice Ganediwala To Protest Against Her Controversial ‘Skin To Skin’ Ruling

Court specifically pointed it out that sexual assault as defined under Section 7 of POCSO Act states that if the touch is to organs other than those categorised as private parts, then it must be with a sexual intention. The court then said, “So obviously touching the bum of the girl cannot be said to be without sexual intention,” as it deemed the definition cited by Google under the context as unacceptable as far as Indians were concerned.

The court supported their verdict linking back to the case of late retired IPS officer KPS Gill, who was convicted of having patted the posterior of an IAS officer at a party and was charged under the Indian Penal Code Sections 354 (outraging a woman’s modesty) and 509 (insulting a woman’s modesty).

In context to the present incident, that occurred on September 17, 2017, Judge MA Baraliya noted, “The victim told her parents and the police that the accused had touched her private part. At the relevant time, she was hardly 10 years old. So she expressed her ordeal in her language. So there cannot be any confusion that she was not only teased but had been touched inappropriately by the accused.”

“Accused and other three were laughing at her when she had been to buy bread. The second time when she was going still they were laughing at her. Past conduct of the accused laughing at her and then touching her manifests that it was all with sexual intention, to grab the chance. The sexual intention is the state of mind, may not necessarily be proved by direct evidence, such intention is to be inferred from the attending circumstances of the case,” the judge said after sentencing the accused to five years in jail and imposing on him a fine of Rs. 10,000.

The ruling came as a sigh of relief after the disappointing verdict of Judge Ganediwala not a few weeks ago, where she insisted on skin-to-skin contact to be able to charge someone under the POCSO act.

Also Read : A 15-Year-Old Girl Allegedly Raped By 16-Year-Old Boy. The Incident Was Not Reported Because They Feared Social Stigma


Leave a Reply