In a significant judgment, the Karnataka High Court on Monday ruled that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) is gender neutral. The Court clarified that women, just like men, can be prosecuted under provisions dealing with penetrative sexual assault.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna emphasized that the Act’s preamble and purpose make it inclusive, ensuring equal protection to all children irrespective of gender. While certain provisions use gendered pronouns, the Court highlighted that under Section 8 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the pronoun “he” legally includes both male and female.
Case Background: Woman Accused of Abusing 13-Year-Old Boy
The ruling came while hearing a plea filed by a 52-year-old woman seeking to quash proceedings under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act. The complaint was lodged by the parents of a 13-year-old boy, who alleged that their neighbor — an artist — had repeatedly assaulted the child between February and June 2020.
After moving abroad, the boy reportedly developed psychological issues and later disclosed the abuse. On returning to India in 2024, the family registered a complaint, leading to an FIR and subsequent chargesheet.
The accused argued that women cannot be booked under Sections 4 and 6 since the provisions mention “he,” and further claimed that no potency test had been conducted. However, the prosecution and complainants insisted that the Act explicitly applies to both genders and protects all children from abuse.
Court’s Observations on Gender Neutrality
Rejecting the plea, the High Court stressed that the POCSO Act’s intention is to safeguard children from sexual abuse regardless of the perpetrator’s gender.
“The Act is progressive and rooted in gender neutrality. Its object is to protect all children, irrespective of sex. The language of Section 4 dealing with penetrative sexual assault is clearly inclusive,” the Court stated.
The Court also dismissed the argument that women are only “passive participants” in intercourse, calling the notion archaic and irrelevant in modern legal interpretation.
Delay in Filing Complaint Not Grounds for Quashing
On the issue of delay in lodging the complaint, the Court ruled that such delay cannot be a ground to quash proceedings in cases involving child sexual abuse. The Court observed that the victim’s testimony and statements under Section 164 CrPC were detailed and credible.
Consequently, the High Court refused to quash the charges and allowed the trial to continue. However, it clarified that its observations are limited to the quashing petition and shall not influence the trial’s final outcome.
Representation in Court
- For the accused: Senior Advocate Hashmath Pasha with Advocate Kariappa NA
- For the State: Additional Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesha
- For the complainant: Advocates Ashok GV and Monika HB
