Author: Raonak Ranjan, Army Institute of Law, Mohali

The case of Satish Ragde v. State of Maharashtra is considered one of the landmark judgments under POSCO Act (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012). The judgment on this case was delivered by Justice Puspa V.Ganediwala,on  19^th January 2021. This day was considered a day of mourning by child rights activists and people of India. WHY?

 Because of its decision that was so off the beam that would have created the wrong precedent for the future if it would not have been challenged by  the Attorney General of India, the National Commission for Women, and the State of Maharashtra.

The abovementioned case is about sexual assault of 12-year-old minor (whose name is not disclosed). The minor was a resident of Gittikhadan, Pune.

The accused Satish Ragde at the pretext of giving guava to the girls called her at his place, pressed the breast of the minor and tried to remove her salwar. The mother of the minor while she was searching for her daughter asked one of the neighbors who told her that the minor was still in the vicinity of the accused house. When she reached there, she saw the accused coming down from the first floor. Upon being asked by her, he totally refused the minor’s presence. Mother went on searching and checking his house and found the daughter in the room on the first floor of his house. Minor was crying and narrated the whole story.  Mother directly went to the police station and filed the FIR.The accused was charged with the sections of IPC (which is now BNS) and under the sections of POCSO Act. The chargesheet was filed before special POCSO Court at Nagpur.

He was convicted under following sections:

Section 342 of the IPC (illegally confining another person) (now section 127(2) of BNS, 2023)

Section 354 of the IPC (any person with the intent or knowledge that his action would lead to the outrage of modesty of a woman) (now section 74 of BNS,2023)

Section 363 of the IPC (any person who takes another person, aged below 18 years, or of unsound mind, out of the care or custody of his/her legal guarding, without the guardian's permission or consent, is said to have committed the crime of kidnapping) (now section 137(2) of BNS,2023)

Section 7 of the POCSO Act (whoever, with sexual intent touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child or makes the child touch the vagina, penis, anus, or breast of such person or any other person, or does any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration is said to commit sexual assault).

 Section 8 of the POCSO Act (states the punishment for sexual assault, with a descriptive term for imprisonment, up to 3 years, which may be extended up to 5 years, or a fine, or both).

 The accused was given 3 years of imprisonment and a fine of rupees 1500. The accused then filed an appeal before High court of Maharashtra to acquit him of his sentence.

Following were the legal issues in the above-mentioned case:

• Whether the accused is guilty under the section 7 and 8 of POSCO Act.

  
  

• Whether the groping (touching pressed without removing clothes) would amount to sexual offence and would fall under the section of POSCO Act.

  
  

• Whether the attempt to removing salwar falls under the sexual assault and would it be punished under section 8 of POSCO Act.

The council for the appellant argued that mother was being a hearsay witness in the case. As the 12-year-old girl ‘victim’ was immature and sexually inexperienced, according to the counsel. She may have told her mother about a strange encounter in the heat of the moment, and her mother may have told the police about it. He claimed that the entire concept appeared wrong and that their testimonies would not help the cause.

The respondent's learned counsel contended that the minor was the victim of "sexual assault" since she was lured into the residence and her salwar was attempted to be taken off.

The Hon'ble Justice said that the accused, Satish Ragde, did press the girl's breast, it was impossible to establish whether he did it by taking off her salwar or placing his hand underneath. As a result, it was ascertained that there was no "skin-to-skin" contact or sexual penetration, which is pertinent to Section 7 of the POCSO Act and only constitutes a serious offence covered by Section 363 of the IPC (offending a woman's modesty), under which he was sentenced with one-year imprisonment and a 500 rupee fine. Therefore, the decision of the special court of Nagpur was overruled and he was acquitted with the charges under section 7 and 8 of POSCO Act.

The judgment of the Bombay high court led to public outrage. People were not happy with its decision. The concept of skin-to-skin contact and its interpretation by the court was very irrational when it said that groping would not amount to any sought of sexual offence under POSCO Act. The judgment might have set the wrong precedent if it was not challenged by the Attorney General of India, the National Commission for Women, and the State of Maharashtra. The appeal was made, and the case name was “Attorney General for India v. Satish and others”.

The honorable Supreme Court of India overturned the Bombay High court’s decision and said that groping and even the attempt to remove the salwar of the minor would amount to sexual offence under section 7 and 8 of POSCO Act. The accused was found guilty under sections of POSCO Act and was now given 3 years of life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.500. 

The decision of Bombay High court, not only in my opinion but also in the opinion of many people, led to wrong interpretation of simpler concept and law itself. India has the largest population of youth and children under the age of 18 years. This act was made in order to protect the children from sexual offences that happens against them. The judgment of Bombay High Court led to the ambiguity over the existence of the act. At last Honorable Supreme Court of India had to intervene in it. The supreme court of India overturned the decisions of Bombay High court and gave the judgment in the favor of the minor girl. The court said that skin-to-skin contact does matters but what matters the most is ‘mens rea’, the intent. Intent of committing sexual offence with the minor girl. The accused was sentenced under the sections of IPC (now BNS) which are section 342, 354, 363 and also under the section 7 and 8 of POSCO Act.

The issue of sexual offences which happens against the children is of major global concern. Children who are the victim of sexual assault often suffer mental problems and trauma which they can’t overcome of. The decision of respected Supreme Court of India has given a little solace to the people given that how much problem and outrage the judgment of Bombay High Court given.