Landmark Judgments

8.1 Shailesh Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi (2018) — Delhi HC

Held: The definition of sexual assault under Section 7 POCSO does not require skin-to-skin contact. Any physical contact with sexual intent qualifies — even over clothing. The conviction was upheld.

But cf.: Bombay HC in Attorney General v. Satish (2021) controversially held that "touching" required skin-to-skin contact — creating confusion. The SC ultimately overruled the Bombay HC ruling.

8.2 Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017) — SC

Held: Section 375 IPC (now BNS Section 63) exception 2, which exempted marital rape of a wife aged 15–18 years, was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court harmonised POCSO with IPC — any sexual intercourse with a wife below 18 years (even if married) constitutes rape under POCSO.

Significance: Ended the legal anomaly where child marriage gave impunity to marital rape of minor brides.

8.3 Libnus v. State of Goa (2021) — SC

Held (overruling Bombay HC in Satish case): Sexual assault under Section 7 POCSO does not require skin-to-skin contact. Any physical contact with sexual intent — whether direct or through clothing — constitutes sexual assault. The SC explicitly rejected the Bombay HC's narrowing interpretation.

8.4 State of Maharashtra v. Bharat Chaganlal Raghani (2001 — pre-POCSO IPC case but relevant)

Important precedent on the rule that a child victim's testimony, if found credible, requires no independent corroboration — principle extended and reinforced under POCSO framework.

---