The Bombay HC’s verdict may be against harsh punitive action but it’s likely to embolden sexual predators

In a shocking verdict that will have far-reaching implications for women/child safety, their emotional well-being and the way sexual predators perceive and twist the law to their advantage, the Bombay High Court has ruled that there must be “skin-to-skin contact with sexual intent” for an act to be considered sexual assault. So, according to the verdict that was unbelievably delivered by a woman judge, “mere groping will not fall under the definition of sexual assault”. This judgment will set a dangerous precedent for defining sexual assault in the courts, and most offenders will be safe in the knowledge that as there was no “skin-to-skin contact with sexual intent”, they can get away with lighter punishment as it will not be deemed sexual assault. Instead, it will constitute the offence of outraging a woman’s modesty under the IPC’s Section 354, which carries a lighter punishment. This will be particularly detrimental in POCSO cases because minors will then be subjected to questions on whether the touch was over the clothes or under which, at the best of times, can be a traumatising question for a child who has already been subjected to sexual abuse. And the person being let off with light punishment just because it was not skin to skin, will leave the child feeling outraged and helpless. It is irrational to say that sexual assault does not take place with clothes on. Ask all the women/girls who get groped and molested at public places.

In terms of its offensive nature, absurdity and ability to infuriate, this observation falls in the same category as victim-shaming and is downright sad as it comes from the gender which is the most common victim of such heinous assaults that have the capacity to leave the victim bruised, afraid and under-confident with major trust issues with the opposite gender. As it is, crimes against women saw a rise of 7.3 per cent in 2019 as compared to 2018. Even though experts feel that the order is an attempt to highlight the need for a second look at the way the law punishes sexual abusers, and is a verdict against harsh punitive action for sexual crimes, the fact remains that reforms cannot come at the cost of safety of the victims. Particularly for crimes that leave them scarred for life.