There is this news being rounded up in bad faith.
Before putting out wild and Outrageous views, you first need to understand the case and the actions of the accused.
The accused here, had 'touched' the breast, which amount to 'Outraging Modesty' & is punishable u/s 354A IPC.
Before putting out wild and Outrageous views, you first need to understand the case and the actions of the accused.
The accused here, had 'touched' the breast, which amount to 'Outraging Modesty' & is punishable u/s 354A IPC.
Reason :
The IPC had been amended and the word 'Sexual Intercourse' was REPLACED with the word 'Sexual Assault'.
Sec 375, Sexual Assault means :
1. The introduction (to any extent) by a man of his sexual organ, into the vagina, anus, urethra or mouth of any woman or child.
The IPC had been amended and the word 'Sexual Intercourse' was REPLACED with the word 'Sexual Assault'.
Sec 375, Sexual Assault means :
1. The introduction (to any extent) by a man of his sexual organ, into the vagina, anus, urethra or mouth of any woman or child.
2. The introduction to any extent by a man of an object or a part of the body (other than the sexual organ) into the vagina, anus, urethra or mouth of a woman or child.
3. Manipulating any part of the body of a child,so as to cause penetration of the vagina, anus, urethra or mouth of the offender by any part of the child.
The incident being talked about says, that the man touched the minor's chest. Which falls in the 'Outraging of Modesty'.
The incident being talked about says, that the man touched the minor's chest. Which falls in the 'Outraging of Modesty'.
The judge has already said, that though it does not amount to 'Sexual Assault', it definitely is punishable under section 354a for Outraging of Modesty.
There is a fine line between both & there is a reason why there are different sections for Outraging Modesty & Sexual Assault.
There is a fine line between both & there is a reason why there are different sections for Outraging Modesty & Sexual Assault.
Before quickly Reacting to any thing, learn to have a habit of self reading. It will save you from bursting into rage and giving out unhealthy and wrong reactions !
🙏
🙏
The Hon'ble High Court has rightfully said that the accused is guilty under section 354A of the IPC for while acquitting him under section 8 of the POCSO Act, because the act Does not amount to Sexual Assault ( in other words Penetration or a mere attempt to penetrate).
It is clearly defined u/s 7 and 8 of POCSO Act - "SEXUAL INTENT"..
And the act amounts to 'Attempt' of doing an offence which comes under Abetment and Attempt which is penalized for
upto half the punishment prescribed for that
office (Section 18). It could have been considered.
And the act amounts to 'Attempt' of doing an offence which comes under Abetment and Attempt which is penalized for
upto half the punishment prescribed for that
office (Section 18). It could have been considered.
But it's a thin line,Almost invisible !
It is very very evident that a wrong precendent is not set.Had this been waived off,w/o punishment it would have been definitely a bizzare judgement.But he has been convicted for Outraging of Modesty.The Evidence Act also plays an imp role.
It is very very evident that a wrong precendent is not set.Had this been waived off,w/o punishment it would have been definitely a bizzare judgement.But he has been convicted for Outraging of Modesty.The Evidence Act also plays an imp role.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
