‘Where there’s folly…’: Gujarat Pocso court quotes Ramayana, jails man to 20 years

Stating the reasons for the sentencing, the judgment noted, “Here, the accused is a husband and the father of a child. Despite this, he lured the minor away with the promise of marriage and proceeded to sexually exploit the minor herself. This establishes the accused’s perverse mentality. If such perversions are not curbed, no minor girl in society will remain safe. Therefore, it appears necessary to impose the punishment prescribed by law on such an accused, and accordingly, the following final order is passed.”

The trial was completed within two months and eight days of its commencement, and the judgment was delivered within five months of the complaint being filed.

According to the FIR, the survivor was taken by the accused on his motorcycle from outside a temple on April 19, 2026, on the promise of marriage. She was kept at relatives’ and friends’ homes at multiple places, where the accused, according to her testimony, had sexual relations with her “on several occasions.” She was recovered along with the accused on June 4, after the family, having initially delayed the complaint out of fear of “loss of honour in society,” approached the police.

Prosecution witnesses included the panchas who recorded the seizure of clothing and the motorcycle, the survivor’s father, the doctors who examined both parties, and the investigating officer, who were examined at length during the trial.

The defence questioned the delay in filing the complaint and pointed to the absence of an ossification test, injuries, and other material evidence. It also argued that the prosecution had failed to establish forcible sexual relations and argued that the relationship was consensual, and that the victim herself had denied physical relations in parts of her testimony.

The court rejected the argument, holding that under Sections 29 and 30 of the Pocso Act, the burden shifts to the accused once a complaint is registered, and that “her consent, even if given, would not amount to consent in the eyes of law” given her age.

The court relied on the victim’s testimony along with medical evidence and statements made by the accused during his medical examination. The doctor recorded that the accused said he had known the victim for about two years and described their relationship as a “love relationship”. He also gave the doctor an account of sexual relations with her at different locations.

The court described the accused’s statements to the doctor as an “extrajudicial confession”, noting that his medical history supported the victim’s account that he had taken her to different places and had sexual relations with her repeatedly. The court found the two medical histories “corroborative” of the prosecution case.

According to the victim’s testimony, the survivor knew the accused because his wife worked at a beauty parlour she used to visit. The court further reasoned that consent was legally irrelevant given that the victim was under 18, and that the accused – at nearly twice her age and already married with a child – had “taken advantage of her tender mental state” while fully aware of her age.

The court also directed that compensation of Rs 2 lakh to the victim under the Gujarat Victim Compensation Scheme, 2019, be disbursed by the District Legal Services Authority, Gandhinagar.