Delhi High Court: In an application seeking leave to appeal challenging the judgment dated 10-02-2020, wherein the respondent (‘accused’) was acquitted under Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’), Jasmeet Singh, J., stated that the societal and legal views on adolescent love should emphasize the rights of young individuals to engage in romantic relationships that were free from exploitation and abuse. Love is a fundamental human experience, and adolescents have the right to form emotional connections. The law should evolve to acknowledge and respect these relationships, as long as they are consensual and free from coercion.
Considering the overall factors, the Court stated that the impugned judgment dated 10-02-2020, was well reasoned and did not require any interference, and accordingly, dismissed the present appeal.
Background
On 10-12-2014, at about 12:25 am, the father of the prosecutrix registered a complaint regarding the missing of his daughter aged about 17 years and studying in Class 12th. The prosecutrix went for tuition but did not return home. The complainant expressed his doubt on the accused who was also missing from his house. During the course of investigation, the prosecutrix and the accused were apprehended at Dharuhera and were brought to Delhi.
The prosecutrix was medically examined and her statement under Section 1641 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 was recorded. The accused was also arrested. On 06-08-2015, charges under Section 4 of the POCSO Act were framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The Trial Court after considering the entire evidence vide the impugned judgement, acquitted the respondent under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the present appeal was filed.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that the issue that the prosecutrix was less than 18 years old on the day of the incident was an important ingredient of the offence under the POCSO Act. The burden was upon the prosecution to prove the same. In the present case, there were inconsistencies regarding the date of birth of the prosecutrix as the school records were not corroborated by any evidence as mandated under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Thus, the prosecution had failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecutrix was below the age of 18 years on the date of the alleged incident.
The Court stated that in cases like the present one, where the prosecutrix was nearly 17 years old, and there was no conclusive proof of age, it was unsafe to apply the provisions of the POCSO Act against the accused. The Court stated that to convict an individual under the POCSO Act, without definitive proof of the age of the prosecutrix, especially when the age difference between the prosecutrix and the age of majority was of only one or two years, would be harsh and unjust.
Additionally, the Court noted that the prosecutrix had categorically stated that the relationship between her and the accused was with her consent during her statement under Section 164 of CrPC. During her court testimony as well, she had deposed that the physical relations were made between her and the accused with her consent. The Court stated that all the facts proved in this case clearly indicated the willingness of the prosecutrix to accompany the accused and physical relations between them was consensual.
The Court stated that the societal and legal views on adolescent love should emphasize the rights of young individuals to engage in romantic relationships that were free from exploitation and abuse. Love is a fundamental human experience, and adolescents have the right to form emotional connections. The law should evolve to acknowledge and respect these relationships, as long as they are consensual and free from coercion.
The Court stated that while the legal age of consent was important for protecting minors, the adolescents should be allowed to express their feelings and engage in relationships without fear of criminalization. The focus of the law should be on preventing exploitation and abuse rather than punishing love. The Court affirmed that consensual and respectful adolescent love was a natural part of human development. The legal system must safeguard the rights of young individuals to love while ensuring their safety and well-being.
The Court stated that the POCSO Act was promulgated for the protection of children, but did not choose to draw any distinction as to a girl of less than 18 who chooses a partner out of her own choice and volition. Therefore, any sexual act or intercourse by a man with such a girl would constitute an offence under various provisions of the POCSO Act.
The Court stated that the age of majority as prescribed, must be construed and interpreted in the context of the law for which it was being considered and in a case of this nature, where the minor was certain and unshaken in her opinion and desire, it would not be right and proper for this Court to brush aside her views on the ground that she was not 18 years of age as on date and was only 16 years, 10 months, 21 days old.
Considering the overall factors, the Court stated it had not been proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution that the prosecutrix was a minor as well as the prosecutrix was certain that the relationship was with her consent. Thus, the Court stated that the impugned judgment dated 10-02-2020, was well reasoned and did not require any interference, and accordingly, dismissed the present appeal.
[State (NCT of Delhi) v. X., CRL.L.P. 10 of 2022, decided on 30-01-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP with SI Himanshu, PS Jaffarpur Kalan.
For the Respondent: Vinay Kumar Sharma, Prince, Aaditya, Ritu Kumari, Advocates.
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 HERE
1. Section 183 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
