‘Minor’s consent is no consent’: Delhi High Court overturns acquittal in POCSO case

Acquittal

• The prosecution alleged that the survivor, aged 16 years, had gone missing, which led to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) for kidnapping. During the investigation, the girl was found and she testified before a doctor that she was sexually assaulted by the accused.
• Thereafter, the accused was arrested and, on completion of the investigation, a chargesheet was filed against him under the aforesaid offences.
• The accused, on his part, contended that the survivor told him that she was above 18 years. He also stated that he wanted to marry her, but her parents did not allow it.
• The trial court granted the accused the benefit of the doubt with regard to the age of the survivor, and acquitted him of all the charges.

‘Serious error’ to disregard public document

The Delhi High Court noted that the birth certificate issued by the Municipal Corporation proved that the survivor was a minor. It observed that the trial court committed a “serious error” in disregarding a duly proved public document, without any cogent basis.

It further stated that during the cross-examination, no question was put by the defence challenging the authenticity or correctness of the birth certificate.

“In the absence of any such challenge, the document remained uncontroverted and ought to have been accepted as reliable evidence. In the absence of any cogent rebuttal, birth certificate issued by a competent authority can be relied upon for determining age,” the Delhi High Court observed.

The court also rejected the trial court’s reasoning that the birth certificate loses its evidentiary value on account of delayed registration.

“It is not uncommon in rural and economically weaker sections of society for births to be registered belatedly due to lack of awareness or access to institutional mechanisms,” it observed.

The Delhi High Court ruled that the delay in registration, by itself, cannot be a ground to discard an otherwise valid document issued by a competent authority.

The bench remarked that discrepancies in the testimony by the survivor’s mother, particularly regarding the exact year of birth, cannot override a duly proved statutory document.

“The law does not permit the Court to substitute documentary evidence with approximations derived from oral statements. Therefore, the finding of the Trial Court on the issue of age is unsustainable,” it held.

Possible relationship can’t override POCSO Act

• The Delhi High Court observed that the defence put forth by the accused, suggesting a possible relationship with the prosecutrix, cannot override the statutory prohibition under the POCSO Act.
• The defence of the respondent, suggesting a possible relationship between him and the prosecutrix, does not override the statutory prohibition under the POCSO Act, which criminalises sexual acts with minors irrespective of consent or relationship, the court held.
• It is a settled position, reiterated in numerous judicial pronouncements, that “the consent of minor is no consent in the eyes of law,” the bench stated, adding that even if the relationship between the prosecutrix and the respondent was consensual, it is of no legal consequence.
• The Delhi High Court held that the benefit of doubt extended by the trial court was not based on reasonable grounds but on “speculative reasoning”.
• The prosecution has successfully established that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the commission of offence, the court noted and convicted the accused.