Kerala High Court’s Interpretation of ‘Chest’ in POCSO Cases
In a recent landmark decision, the Kerala High Court has provided clarity on the interpretation of certain terms within the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The court emphasized that in cases pertaining to child sexual abuse, a child’s reference to their ‘chest’ being touched should be understood as ‘breast’. This interpretation is significant for establishing the offense of sexual assault under Section 7 of the POCSO Act.
The case in question, Aboobacker v State of Kerala & anr, was presided over by Justice A Badharudeen. The appeal involved a 58-year-old man previously convicted under the POCSO Act for sexually assaulting a 12-year-old boy in Malappuram district. The incident reportedly occurred in May 2022, when the child was approached by the accused while purchasing mosquito repellent.
Justice Badharudeen noted that while ‘chest’ and ‘breast’ have distinct medical definitions, in the context of sexual offenses involving minors, these terms are often used interchangeably. Therefore, when a child alleges that their ‘chest’ was grabbed with sexual intent, the court must interpret it as a reference to their ‘breast’. This understanding is crucial for applying Section 7 of the POCSO Act, which defines sexual assault.
The High Court’s ruling arose from the appellant’s argument that touching a child’s chest did not constitute sexual assault. Additionally, the defense contended that the prosecution failed to demonstrate repeated acts of assault, a requirement for aggravated charges under Section 9(l) read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act.
While the court dismissed the first argument by affirming that ‘chest’ should be interpreted as ‘breast’, it acknowledged the validity of the second contention. The prosecution was unable to prove repeated offenses, leading the court to revise the conviction from aggravated sexual assault to a lesser charge under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act.
More Read
As a result, the court reduced the accused’s sentence from seven years to three years of rigorous imprisonment and lowered the fine from ₹50,000 to ₹5,000. Advocates TU Sujith Kumar and Winston KV represented the appellant, while Public Prosecutor MA Shihab appeared on behalf of the State.
This ruling underscores the importance of considering the context and intent behind a child’s testimony in POCSO cases, ensuring that justice is served in a manner that reflects the severity of the offense.
