KOCHI: The Kerala Excessive Court docket has held that having sexual activity or exhibiting a unadorned physique earlier than a minor quantities to sexual harassment of the kid and is punishable underneath the Safety of Youngsters from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The ruling by Justice A Badharudeen got here on a plea by a person looking for quashing of the case in opposition to him for numerous offences underneath the IPC, POCSO Act and the Juvenile Justice Act. The person was accused of getting sexual activity with the minor’s mom in a lodge with out locking the room after which beating up the boy, who noticed the act, for questioning the identical.
The accused-petitioner, in his plea, claimed that not one of the offences had been made out in opposition to him. The Excessive Court docket held that when an individual displays a unadorned physique to a toddler, the identical is an act aspiring to commit sexual harassment upon a toddler. Subsequently, the offence punishable underneath sections 11(i) (sexual harassment) learn with 12 (punishment for sexual harassment) of the POCSO Act can be attracted.
“On this case, the allegation is that the accused individuals engaged in sexual activity after being bare, even with out locking the room and allowed the entry of the minor within the room, in order that the minor may see the identical…Thus, prima facie, the allegation as to fee of offence punishable underneath sections 11(i) learn with 12 of the POCSO Act, as in opposition to the petitioner (accused man) on this case is made out,” the Excessive Court docket mentioned.
It additionally mentioned that for the reason that man allegedly beat up the kid and the minor’s mom didn’t attempt to cease the identical, subsequently, the offences underneath sections 323 (Punishment for voluntarily inflicting damage) and 34 (widespread intention) had been additionally attracted. The HC directed that the person face trial for the offences underneath the POCSO Act and sections 323 and 34 of the IPC.
It, nonetheless, partly allowed his plea and quashed the legal proceedings in opposition to him for the offences underneath part 294(b) (sings, recites or utters any obscene music, ballad or phrases, in or close to any public place) and 341 (punishment for wrongful restraint) of the IPC and part 75 of the JJ Act, saying that these offences weren’t made out.
