Court slashes 19-year-old’s POCSO life term to 10 years, blames ‘adverse impact of hormonal changes’

“The accused person is known to the victim girl for a long period of time. The accused person was hardly 19 years at the time of the commission of the offence. Considering the relationship between the accused person and the victim girl, this Court cannot rule out the adverse impact of hormonal changes that take place in that age. Ex. Consequenti, the sentence imposed by the trial court is harsh and severe which requires modification,” the bench said on June 15.

Justices N Anand Venkatesh and K K Ramakrishnan said the POCSO Act does not recognise consent from a child and makes no exception for romantic relationships involving minors. (AI-enhanced image)

Life term reduced, conviction upheld

• Having found that the enhanced punishment could not be imposed under the POCSO Act, the court turned to the question of what sentence would be appropriate.
• The judges noted that the accused was only around 19 years old when the offence took place and the survivor and the accused had known each other for several years.
• The court made it clear that, however genuine or romantic a relationship may appear, a minor cannot legally consent to sexual activity, and the protections under the POCSO Act remain absolute.
• It was in this context that the court made its widely discussed observation regarding the impact of adolescent hormonal changes and concluded that the punishment imposed by the trial court was excessively harsh.
• The bench ultimately modified the sentence to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5,000 while maintaining the conviction for aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act.

School-time romance

The case traces its origins to a relationship that began when the survivor was a schoolgirl. According to the prosecution, the girl, who belongs to a scheduled caste community, had known the accused since Class 8. Their acquaintance gradually developed into a romantic relationship.

The prosecution said that during the first week of August 2019, the accused contacted the girl and asked her to meet him.

He allegedly promised to marry her, and believing him, the girl entered into a sexual relationship with him. The relationship continued over a period of time and resulted in her becoming pregnant.

The situation took a dramatic turn when the girl informed the accused about her pregnancy. According to her statement, the accused denied responsibility, refused to marry her, and allegedly cited caste differences as a reason for rejecting the proposal.

On May 4, 2020, when she was in an advanced stage of pregnancy, she once again approached him, requesting marriage. The accused allegedly refused and told her to “go and die”.

The next day, the girl allegedly attempted to end her life. She was rushed to the hospital and, while undergoing treatment, delivered a baby girl on May 6, 2020. A criminal case was subsequently registered.

DNA evidence turning point

One of the most crucial pieces of evidence in the case under the POCSO Act was the DNA analysis.

During the investigation, blood samples were collected from the accused, the girl, and the child. The forensic report conclusively established that the accused was the biological father of the child born to the survivor.

The high court noted that this scientific evidence left little room for dispute regarding the sexual relationship between the two. “Exhibit P20, which is the forensic analysis report, makes it abundantly clear that the accused is the father of the child,” the court noted while upholding the conviction under the POCSO Act.

Court rejects defence of ‘consensual relationship’

• Before the high court, the defence attempted to portray the case as a consensual romantic relationship between two young individuals rather than a criminal act.
• The appellant’s counsel argued that there was no allegation of force, threat or coercion from the beginning of the relationship and that the sexual relationship was part of a mutually accepted romance between teenagers.
• The argument, however, found no favour with the bench.
• The court said the POCSO Act does not recognise consent from a child and makes no exception for romantic relationships involving minors.
• The submission sounds “very attractive and romantic”, the court remarked before adding that the law does not contemplate a situation where a child can legally consent to sexual activity.
• The court stressed that accepting such a defence would undermine the entire purpose of the POCSO Act, which was enacted to protect children from sexual exploitation.
• There is no question of a child giving consent, the bench said, holding that even where a relationship appears consensual, criminal liability under the POCSO Act would still arise if the survivor was below 18 years of age.

Minor status

The defence also challenged the survivor’s age, arguing that the birth certificate had been issued years after her birth and could not be fully relied upon. The high court rejected that contention.

The judges examined the birth certificate, school records, and testimony from the school headmaster and concluded that the survivor’s date of birth was May 18, 2003.

This meant she had not completed 18 years when the sexual relationship began in August 2019 and therefore fell squarely within the definition of a child under the POCSO Act.

Why SC/ST charges were quashed

• While the high court upheld the POCSO conviction, it took a different view on the charges under the SC/ST Act.
• The trial court had convicted the accused under Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(v) of the Act.
• However, the bench said that merely because the survivor belonged to a scheduled caste community did not automatically attract those provisions.
• The judges noted that the relationship between the two had existed for several years and had developed naturally between a boy and a girl who knew each other well.
• According to the court, the prosecution failed to prove that the sexual acts were committed because the survivor belonged to a scheduled caste community or that caste identity was the reason behind the offence.
• The relationship and consequent physical intercourse was “not on account of the victim girl belonging to the Scheduled Caste community”, the court observed while acquitting the accused of all charges under the SC/ST Act.

No evidence of abetment of suicide

The high court also overturned the conviction under Section 306 (abetment of suicide), read with Section 511 (attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The prosecution’s case was that the accused’s alleged statement asking the girl to “go and die” drove her to attempt to take her life.

The bench held that such a statement, by itself, was insufficient to establish the legal ingredients of instigation required for an offence of abetment of suicide.

The court further pointed to inconsistencies in the medical evidence. A doctor who testified during the trial admitted that if the survivor had actually consumed something harmful, the foetus would likely have suffered serious consequences. Yet the child was delivered shortly thereafter in a normal condition.

This circumstance created doubts regarding the prosecution’s version, the court said, while acquitting the accused of the charge.

Critical difference of 9 days

The most consequential legal issue before the high court concerned the sentence under the POCSO Act itself.

The trial court had imposed imprisonment for the remainder of the accused’s natural life by applying the enhanced punishment introduced through the 2019 amendment to the POCSO Act.

However, the high court found a crucial factual detail. The survivor herself had testified that the first act of penetrative sexual assault occurred on August 7, 2019. The amendment in the law enhancing punishment came into force only on August 16, 2019.

That difference of nine days became critical.

The bench held that Article 20(1) of the Constitution prohibits courts from imposing a punishment greater than what was prescribed when the offence was committed.

Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the high court ruled that the enhanced punishment introduced by the amendment could not be applied retrospectively.

“The amendment of Section 6 of the POCSO Act, which enhanced the punishment, cannot be put against the appellant for an act which was committed by him before the coming into force of the amendment Act,” the judgment said.