<p>The Supreme Court on Thursday said the Bombay High Court's judgements making skin-to-skin contact necessary for offence of sexual assualt against a child not "merely limits the operation of the law, but tends to subvert its intention", besides undermining her dignity and autonomy, through unwanted intrusions.</p>.<p>"It has the effect of “inventions and evasions” meant to continue the mischief, which Parliament wished to avoid," Justice Ravindra Bhat wrote in his separate and concurring judgement.</p>.<p>The court allowed appeals against two such separate judgements of the High Court and ordered the two accused Satish and Libnus to surrender within four weeks to serve their sentences of three and five years respectively.</p>.<p>In his judgement, Justice Bhat pointed out fallacy in the High Court’s reasoning that it assumed that indirect touch was not covered by Section 7 of POCSO Act. </p>.<p>"That provision covers and is meant to cover both direct and indirect touch. In plain English, to touch is to engage in one of the most basic of human sensory perceptions. The receptors on the surface of the human body are acutely sensitive to the subtleties of a whole range of tactile experiences," the court said.</p>.<p>Giving examples, Justice Bhat said the use of a spoon to consume food - without touching it with the hand - in no way diminishes the sense of touch that is experienced by the lips and the mouth.</p>.<p>Similarly, when a stick, or other object is pressed onto a person, even when clothed, their sense of touch is keen enough to feel it.</p>.<p>"Therefore, the reasoning in the High Court’s judgment quite insensitively trivialises - indeed legitimises -an entire range of unacceptable behaviour which undermines a child’s dignity and autonomy, through unwanted intrusions," the court said.</p>.<p>Justice Bhat reminded judges not to interpret law to destroy its meaning.</p>.<p>"It is no part of any judge’s duty to strain the plain words of a statute, beyond recognition and to the point of its destruction, thereby denying the cry of the times that children desperately need the assurance of a law designed to protect their autonomy and dignity, as POCSO does," he said.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court on Thursday said the Bombay High Court's judgements making skin-to-skin contact necessary for offence of sexual assualt against a child not "merely limits the operation of the law, but tends to subvert its intention", besides undermining her dignity and autonomy, through unwanted intrusions.</p>.<p>"It has the effect of “inventions and evasions” meant to continue the mischief, which Parliament wished to avoid," Justice Ravindra Bhat wrote in his separate and concurring judgement.</p>.<p>The court allowed appeals against two such separate judgements of the High Court and ordered the two accused Satish and Libnus to surrender within four weeks to serve their sentences of three and five years respectively.</p>.<p>In his judgement, Justice Bhat pointed out fallacy in the High Court’s reasoning that it assumed that indirect touch was not covered by Section 7 of POCSO Act. </p>.<p>"That provision covers and is meant to cover both direct and indirect touch. In plain English, to touch is to engage in one of the most basic of human sensory perceptions. The receptors on the surface of the human body are acutely sensitive to the subtleties of a whole range of tactile experiences," the court said.</p>.<p>Giving examples, Justice Bhat said the use of a spoon to consume food - without touching it with the hand - in no way diminishes the sense of touch that is experienced by the lips and the mouth.</p>.<p>Similarly, when a stick, or other object is pressed onto a person, even when clothed, their sense of touch is keen enough to feel it.</p>.<p>"Therefore, the reasoning in the High Court’s judgment quite insensitively trivialises - indeed legitimises -an entire range of unacceptable behaviour which undermines a child’s dignity and autonomy, through unwanted intrusions," the court said.</p>.<p>Justice Bhat reminded judges not to interpret law to destroy its meaning.</p>.<p>"It is no part of any judge’s duty to strain the plain words of a statute, beyond recognition and to the point of its destruction, thereby denying the cry of the times that children desperately need the assurance of a law designed to protect their autonomy and dignity, as POCSO does," he said.</p>
