Recently, the Karnataka High Court held that when a woman manipulates or induces a minor boy to penetrate her, such conduct clearly falls within the ambit of “penetrative sexual assault” under Section 3 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
The Court clarified that Section 3, though commencing with the words “a person”, is gender-neutral in design and its scope is not confined merely to acts involving a male offender. It emphasized that the provision extends to circumstances where a child is compelled or induced to perform penetration, irrespective of the offender’s gender.
The order came while refusing to quash an FIR lodged against a fifty-two-year-old woman accused of sexually assaulting a fourteen-year-old boy. She had been booked under Section 4 and Section 6 of the Act, dealing respectively with punishment for penetrative sexual assault and aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
The petitioner’s counsel had contended that the statutory language, by using the word “he” and referring to male organs, excludes women from liability under Sections 3, 4, and 6. The Court, however, rejected this argument, observing that adopting such a restrictive interpretation would defeat the remedial purpose of the statute. It underscored that the Act seeks to protect children from sexual abuse, and its intent cannot be undermined by strained or narrow readings of gender roles.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna further observed that the complaint and accompanying material clearly indicated that the child had not acted voluntarily but was induced into penetration. This, the Court noted, squarely falls within the statutory phrase “make the child to do so with her or any other person.”
Significantly, the bench also addressed broader societal assumptions, rejecting as “archaic” the notion that in sexual intercourse the male is always the active participant while the woman is merely passive. The Court stressed that such stereotypes have no place in contemporary law, which recognizes that both men and women can be perpetrators as well as victims.
On another point raised by the petitioner, that in a state of shock, a boy cannot sustain erection and therefore penetration was not possible, the Court drew a clear distinction between psychological and physiological concepts. It observed that while shock is psychological, erection and ejaculation are physiological, and involuntary bodily responses may occur even under fear or coercion. Relying on academic research, the bench explained that human physiology does not always conform to rigid psychological expectations.
In its concluding observations, the Court emphasized that allegations involving penetrative and aggravated penetrative sexual assault cannot be brushed aside at the threshold. It held that the case involved serious factual disputes that must be adjudicated at trial, noting that such proceedings are not perfunctory rituals but an imperative necessity. Accordingly, the petition to quash the FIR was dismissed.
Picture Source :
