Stripping a lady, sleeping over her is sexual assault, doesn’t quantity to rape, says Orissa HC

By Express News Service

BHUBANESWAR: Stripping a minor woman, sleeping over her and asking her to place his reproductive organ into her genital don’t quantity to rape because the acts don’t contain penetration, the Orissa High Court has dominated whereas setting apart and modifying the order of a decrease courtroom issued in 2018.

The excessive courtroom ordered the accused to endure seven years of rigorous imprisonment, the utmost punishment for such an offence. As he has been in jail since 2015 and already served the substantive jail time period, the courtroom ordered he be launched if not in any other case required in some other case.

Disposing of a felony enchantment, the one decide bench of Justice SK Sahoo noticed the act dedicated by the accused wouldn’t come inside the definition of ‘rape’ as outlined in part 375 of the IPC or penetrative sexual assault as per part 3 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. He may be stated to have dedicated ‘aggravated sexual assault’, which is punishable underneath part 10 of the Act.

On August 21, 2018, the extra periods judge-cum-special decide of Sundargarh had sentenced one Dilu Jojo to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and imposed penalty of `5,000 underneath part 376(2)(i) of IPC and part 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 for allegedly raping a minor woman of Tensa space.Continued on P5

As per the prosecution, the seven-year-old woman had gone out to play within the afternoon of May 9, 2015 and when she didn’t return residence until midnight, her mom looked for her. She discovered the woman bare at Jhumpudi playground. The woman disclosed the accused had raped  her. The accused was arrested following an FIR lodged at Lahunipada police station. The accused had challenged the judgement of the decrease courtroom.

While modifying the order of the trial courtroom, the excessive courtroom in its June 28 judgement took into consideration the claims of the sufferer that the accused undressed her, made her sleep on a stone, slept over her, closed her mouth and advised her to place his non-public half inside her mouth and additional advised her to place his non-public half into her genital. The courtroom held the acts wouldn’t come inside the definition of ‘rape’ as outlined underneath part 375 of the IPC or ‘penetrative sexual assault’ as outlined in part 3 of the POCSO Act.

“The statement of the victim is completely silent that the accused penetrated his private part, to any extent, into her genital or any part of her body or made her to do the same with him. She is also silent on insertion of any object or a part of his body to any extent, not being the private part, into her genital or any other part of her body. Her evidence is also silent that the accused manipulated any part of her body so as to cause penetration into her genital or any part of her body or made her do so with him. Her evidence is also silent that the accused applied his mouth to her genital or other private parts or made her apply her mouth to his private parts. Therefore, it is very difficult to hold that the ‘rape’ has been committed on the victim by the accused,” Justice Sahoo noticed.

However, referring to part 9 (aggravated sexual assault) of the POCSO Act, the courtroom stated the conduct of the accused is an act with sexual intent.  “It would be an act of sexual intent, which involved physical contact with the victim without penetration and therefore, it would come within the definition of sexual assault as defined under section 7 of the POCSO Act and since the age of the victim has been proved to be below twelve years, the accused committed aggravated sexual assault with the victim,” the order acknowledged.

BHUBANESWAR: Stripping a minor woman, sleeping over her and asking her to place his reproductive organ into her genital don’t quantity to rape because the acts don’t contain penetration, the Orissa High Court has dominated whereas setting apart and modifying the order of a decrease courtroom issued in 2018.

The excessive courtroom ordered the accused to endure seven years of rigorous imprisonment, the utmost punishment for such an offence. As he has been in jail since 2015 and already served the substantive jail time period, the courtroom ordered he be launched if not in any other case required in some other case.

Disposing of a felony enchantment, the one decide bench of Justice SK Sahoo noticed the act dedicated by the accused wouldn’t come inside the definition of ‘rape’ as outlined in part 375 of the IPC or penetrative sexual assault as per part 3 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. He may be stated to have dedicated ‘aggravated sexual assault’, which is punishable underneath part 10 of the Act.googletag.cmd.push(operate() googletag.show(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); );

On August 21, 2018, the extra periods judge-cum-special decide of Sundargarh had sentenced one Dilu Jojo to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and imposed penalty of `5,000 underneath part 376(2)(i) of IPC and part 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 for allegedly raping a minor woman of Tensa space.Continued on P5

As per the prosecution, the seven-year-old woman had gone out to play within the afternoon of May 9, 2015 and when she didn’t return residence until midnight, her mom looked for her. She discovered the woman bare at Jhumpudi playground. The woman disclosed the accused had raped  her. The accused was arrested following an FIR lodged at Lahunipada police station. The accused had challenged the judgement of the decrease courtroom.

While modifying the order of the trial courtroom, the excessive courtroom in its June 28 judgement took into consideration the claims of the sufferer that the accused undressed her, made her sleep on a stone, slept over her, closed her mouth and advised her to place his non-public half inside her mouth and additional advised her to place his non-public half into her genital. The courtroom held the acts wouldn’t come inside the definition of ‘rape’ as outlined underneath part 375 of the IPC or ‘penetrative sexual assault’ as outlined in part 3 of the POCSO Act.

“The statement of the victim is completely silent that the accused penetrated his private part, to any extent, into her genital or any part of her body or made her to do the same with him. She is also silent on insertion of any object or a part of his body to any extent, not being the private part, into her genital or any other part of her body. Her evidence is also silent that the accused manipulated any part of her body so as to cause penetration into her genital or any part of her body or made her do so with him. Her evidence is also silent that the accused applied his mouth to her genital or other private parts or made her apply her mouth to his private parts. Therefore, it is very difficult to hold that the ‘rape’ has been committed on the victim by the accused,” Justice Sahoo noticed.

However, referring to part 9 (aggravated sexual assault) of the POCSO Act, the courtroom stated the conduct of the accused is an act with sexual intent.  “It would be an act of sexual intent, which involved physical contact with the victim without penetration and therefore, it would come within the definition of sexual assault as defined under section 7 of the POCSO Act and since the age of the victim has been proved to be below twelve years, the accused committed aggravated sexual assault with the victim,” the order acknowledged.