Woman can also be tried under POCSO for offence of 'penetrative sexual assault: Delhi HC
New Delhi, Aug 12: A female can also face criminal proceedings under POCSO for committing the offence of "penetrative sexual assault" on a child, and the offence is not restricted to only male offenders, the Delhi High Court has held.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani said the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act was enacted to protect children from sexual offenses, "regardless of whether an offense is committed upon a child by a man or a woman". There was no reason why the word "person" appearing in section 3 (penetrative sexual assault) should be read as referring only to a "male", he added.
The court's decision was delivered last week on a plea by an accused in a POCSO case, who argued that since she was a woman, the offences of "penetrative sexual assault" and "aggravated penetrative sexual assault" can simply not be made out against her.
The accused, while assailing the framing of charges against her, contended that a plain reading of the provision showed that it only, and repeatedly, used the pronoun "he", meaning that the intent of the legislature was only to make a man liable for the offense.
However, the court said there is no reason why the word "person' appearing in section 3 of the POCSO Act should be read as referring only to a "male".
"It is accordingly held that the acts mentioned in sections 3 and 5 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the POCSO Act are an offence regardless of the gender of the offender, provided the acts are committed upon a child," the court said in the judgment.
"Giving due regard to the fact that the Legislature enacted the POCSO Act in order to provide protection to children from sexual offenses – regardless of whether an offense is committed upon a child by a man or a woman – the court must not interpret any provision of the statute that derogates from the legislative intent and purpose," it stated.
The court noted that under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the pronoun "he" and its derivatives are used for any person, whether male or female, and the POCSO provision must not be interpreted in a manner that restricts the offense only to a man.
"When viewed from this lens, the only rational inference is that the pronoun 'he' appearing in section 3(a), 3(b), 3(c) and 3(d) must not be so interpreted as to restrict the offense engrafted in those sections only to a 'man'.
"It is extremely important to note that the said provisions include within the ambit of penetrative sexual assault, the insertion of any object or body-part; or the manipulation of any body part of a child to cause penetration; or the application of the mouth. It would therefore be completely illogical to say that the offense contemplated in those provisions refers only to penetration by a penis," the court observed.
The court, on a prima-facie consideration of the material, therefore, ruled that the offence of "aggravated penetrative sexual assault" was made out against the petitioner, even though she was a woman.
"The petitioner is therefore required to be put to trial for the offenses as charged. The petition is accordingly dismissed," held the court.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Relief to Mayawati, SC disposes of 2009 PIL against installation of her statues in UP
New Delhi, Jan 15: In a relief to BSP supremo Mayawati, the Supreme Court on Wednesday disposed of a petition filed in 2009 seeking a probe into the alleged spending of more than Rs 2,000 crore from the Uttar Pradesh government's budget on installing elephant statutes and personal glorification, when she was the chief minister of the state.
The development came on a day Mayawati turned 69.
A bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma disposed of the petition filed by two lawyers -- Ravi Kant and Sukumar -- after observing that most of the prayers had become infructuous.
It noted that the Election Commission (EC) has already issued guidelines on the issue and that a stay on the installation of the statues cannot be granted as those have already been installed.
The public interest litigation (PIL) matter filed by the lawyers had alleged that a total amount of about Rs 2,000 crore was used from the state's budget for 2008-09 and 2009-10, when Mayawati was the chief minister, for installing her statues and the Bahujan Samaj Party's (BSP) poll symbol -- elephant -- at different places.
The petition, filed through advocate Prakash Kumar Singh, had claimed that the installation of 60 elephant statues at the cost of Rs 52.2 crore was not only wastage of public money but also contrary to circulars issued by the EC.
On April 2, 2019, Mayawati had justified her decision and told the apex court that the construction of her life-size statues and the BSP's poll symbol at various places in Uttar Pradesh during her tenure as the state's chief minister represented the "will of the people".
She had told the court that even the Congress, in the past, installed statues of its leaders, including those of Jawaharlal Nehru, Indira Gandhi, Rajiv Gandhi and P V Narasimha Rao, across the country.
She had also referred to recent instances of installation of statues by state governments, including a statue of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, known as the "Statue of Unity", in Gujarat.
Besides, the BSP supremo had said the BJP-led Uttar Pradesh government has constructed a 221-metre-high statue of Lord Ram in Ayodhya at the state exchequer's cost.
"Thus, construction of memorials and installation of statues was not a new phenomenon in India," she had submitted.
"Similarly, other political parties in power at both the Centre as well as in states have also installed statues of various other leaders at public places at the cost of the public exchequer from time to time, but neither the media nor the petitioners have raised any questions with respect to them," she had said in an affidavit filed in the court.
The Dalit leader was responding to a notice issued by the top court and its oral observations. The court had, on February 8, 2019, observed that Mayawati should deposit the amount of public money used for erecting statues of herself and her party's poll symbol with the state exchequer.
The former Uttar Pradesh chief minister had sought the dismissal of the plea, which had alleged that public funds were misused, saying it was "politically motivated" and was in gross abuse of the process of the court.
"The will of the people was expressed by the state legislature with a proposal to install the statues of the answering respondent (Mayawati) at the memorials to show their respect to a contemporary woman Dalit leader, who has decided to sacrifice her life for the cause of the underprivileged communities, including Dalits, the downtrodden, Scheduled Tribes and economically weaker sections in all the communities," the 2019 affidavit of Mayawati had said.
"In these circumstances, the statues of the answering respondent (Mayawati) came into being as the will of the state legislature to represent the will of the people.
"It is submitted that the funds for the construction of the said memorials and installation of statues have been sanctioned through a budgetary allocation after approval of the budget by the state legislature and the passing of the relevant Appropriation Act by the state legislature in accordance with the Constitution of India and rules," the affidavit had said.
