Direction For Public Hanging, POCSO 'Skin-To-Skin' Case : 2 Instances Where Attorney General Appealed Against HC Judgments

The Supreme Court today set aside the controversial judgement of Bombay High Court which had held that skin-to-skin contact is necessary to constitute an offence of sexual assault under S. 7 of the POCSO Act. 

After Justice Bela Trivedi and Justice Ravindra Bhat read out the operative parts of their judgements, Justice U.U.Lalit took the opportunity to thank the Amicus in the matters- Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave and Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra.

Interestingly, Justice Lalit also noted "this is perhaps the first time that the learned Attorney General has challenged the judgement on Criminal Side and that's again something a very first." Justice Ravindra Bhat intervened to point out that the Attorney General had on a previous instance too challenged a judgement of the Rajasthan High Court requiring public hanging.

The Rajasthan High Court case in which the Attorney General of India had appealed against a judgement on the criminal side- Attorney General of India v Lachma Devi [A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 467] and Others- was a case in which the High Court had ordered for the execution of death sentence by public hanging at the Stadium Ground or Ramlila Ground of Jaipur after giving widespread publicity through the media of the date, time and place of execution. 

In appeal, the Supreme Court had held that execution of death sentence by public hanging would be a barbaric practice violative of Art.21 of the Constitution. The Court had noted-

"It is undoubtedly true that the crime of which accused have been found to be guilty is barbaric and a disgrace and shame on any civilised society which no society should tolerate; but a barbaric crime does not have to be revisited with a barbaric penalty such as public hanging." The Apex Court wholly and unconditionally deleted the direction given by the High Court in regard to the execution of the death sentence by public hanging.

Senior Advocate K Parasaran was the Attorney General then.

In today's judgment, the Supreme Court allowed the Attorney General's appeal observing that the High Court's view that actual "skin-to-skin" contact was necessary for the offence of sexual assault under the POCSO Act was absurd and against the legislative intent. The Supreme Court clarified that "sexual intent" was the main factor which determined if a touch was offensive.