Indian Court Says Oral Sex With Minor Not 'Aggravated Sexual Assault', Sparks Row

The court maintained that the offence comes under the category of "penetrative sexual assault" and the convict should be punished under that provision of the India judicial system. Earlier, India's apex court had stated that sexual intent is the most important aspect for determining sexual assault.

An Indian court's recent observations on oral sex with a minor have triggered massive outrage on social media. On Tuesday, the Allahabad High Court reduced the sentence of a convict who had forced a minor into oral sex, stating that the crime was "less serious".

"From the perusal of the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, it is clear that the offence committed by the appellant neither falls under Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act nor under Section 9(M) of the POCSO Act because there is 'penetrative sexual assault' in the present case," Justice Anil Kumar Ojha observed.

Justice Ojha was hearing the convict's plea, challenging a special sessions court order that had sentenced him to jail for 10 years. Now, the High Court has reduced his jail term to seven years.

According to media reports, the victim's father had alleged during the trial that the convict took his 10-year-old son to a temple in Uttar Pradesh state’s Hardaul town and forced the child to have “oral sex” and gave him INR 20 in 2018. After which the court convicted the culprit under Indian Penal Code sections 377 (unnatural offences) and 506 (punishment for criminal intimidation), along with section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, commonly known as the POCSO Act.

Section 6 of the Act provides punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault.

However, the Allahabad High Court, while reducing the convict's sentence, held that the offence "does not fall in the category of aggravated sexual assault or sexual assault”.

This development comes days after India's apex court set aside a Bombay High Court ruling and had said that "skin-on-skin contact" is not necessary for the offence of sexual assault under the POCSO Act.