‘We feel helpless’: Calcutta High Court reduces POCSO convict’s sentence after state fails to support minor mother

The bench ruled that the 3.5 years the appellant had already served were sufficient under the facts of the case.

The bench added that, having considered the social ramifications as well as the admitted facts of the case, the survivor understood the appellant as her husband and led a conjugal life.

The order continues and say as no social security has been provided by the state, and the victim, in her deposition, expressed her willingness to continue her conjugal life with the appellant, we are exercising the inherent power of the high court to prevent the abuse of the process of law and reduce the sentense.

Case began when survivor gave birth to child

• The appellant was originally convicted by the special court under the POCSO Act in connection with the 2023 case.
• The trial court found him guilty under Section 6 (punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the POCSO Act for the aggravated penetrative sexual assault of a minor neighbor, sentencing him to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 20,000.
• The prosecution’s case began after the survivor gave birth to a baby.
• Medical staff at the hospital informed the police of the delivery and the survivor’s age, leading to the appellant’s arrest.

• According to the complaint, the prior 2021 case against the appellant involving with the same survivor, for which he had previously served a year in jail.
• After the complaint in 2023, the matter reached the trial court, where the court passed the conviction order.
• Public prosecutor, Sumit Kumar Karmakar, submitted that medical evidence as well as the factum that the victim at the relevant stage was a minor, consent of the victim cannot be accepted in the eyes of law, and since the minor victim gave birth to a male child, there is no scope under the provisions of the POCSO Act to acquit the appellant.

Survivor’s conjugal claims

• Appearing for the appellant, advocate Siddhartha Singha submitted that the survivor had no accusations personally so far as the present appellant is concerned, and she understood herself to be the wife of the accused.
• He stated that there was a conjugal relationship as husband and wife, consequent to which a child was born.
  He argued that at the time of deposition, she also expressed her willingness to lead a family with her husband peacefully.

He had already served three and half years of sentence: Court

• Taking into account the peculiar circumstances of the case public prosecutor was confronted with the issue as to whether the victim was provided with a shelter home or any compensation was provided to her, for her day-to-day life expenses.
• The public prosecutor could not satisfy this court on this aspect.
• Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Right to Privacy of Adolescents and having regard to the totality of the circumstances of the present case, we believe that the act of the accused can in no manner be encouraged.
• As such, we uphold the finding of guilt arrived at by the trial court under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
  Records of the case reflect that the appellant had already served almost three and a half years of the sentence in the present case.

Other court ruling

• The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently quashed a case against a man accused of raping a minor girl while noting that he had married the survivor and she would be the “ultimate loser” if the proceedings were allowed to continue.
• In a March 20 ruling, Justice Sandeep Sharma said that the main accused had married the complainant after she turned major, and the couple had a one-and-a-half-year-old child now.
• “No doubt, while accepting prayer for quashing of the FIR in heinous crime like rape, etc. interest of society at large is to be kept in mind rather than the interest of an individual, however .. interest of victim/prosecutrix appears to be of paramount importance, if is not protected and petitioner /accused is left to be prosecuted..the ultimate loser would be victim” the Himachal Pradesh High Court said in its order.