Case Name: Rupesh Beck v. The State & Anr.

Factual Background

The case concerned an appeal against the judgment of the Special Judge under the POCSO Act, who had convicted the appellant under Sections 5(j)(ii) and 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment. The victim was approximately 17 years and 10 months old when the relationship commenced. She met the appellant, then aged 24, at a relative’s marriage ceremony. Their acquaintance developed into a romantic relationship, following which the victim voluntarily left her family home and stayed with the appellant. The two subsequently engaged in a physical relationship over several months.

The victim later underwent a medical examination after experiencing health problems and was found to be pregnant. A complaint was initiated following the medical examination, and an FIR was registered under POCSO. During the proceedings, the appellant argued that the relationship had been consensual and arose from a love affair. He also challenged the FIR, the victim’s statements, the applicability of the statutory presumption under Section 29 POCSO and the sufficiency of the prosecution evidence. The prosecution maintained that the victim was below 18 and that her consent therefore had no legal significance under POCSO.

Court’s Analysis

The Calcutta High Court considered the applicability of the presumption under Section 29 POCSO. The Court noted that once the prosecution establishes the foundational facts of an offence under Section 5, the statutory presumption operates against the accused unless the contrary is proved. In the present case, the victim’s evidence established the relationship and physical intimacy, while medical and documentary evidence supported the prosecution version. The appellant had also not cross-examined the victim or her mother on material aspects of their testimony.

The Court held that the victim’s testimony, when found reliable, could itself form the basis of a POCSO conviction. Once the relevant foundational facts were established, Section 29

required the accused to rebut the statutory presumption through appropriate evidence. The appellant did not make such an attempt. Accordingly, the Court found that the prosecution had established the offence under Section 5 and that the Section 29 presumption remained unrebutted.

A significant issue was the argument that the victim had consented to the relationship. The Court acknowledged that the relationship arose from a love affair and that the victim had consented to the physical intimacy. However, it held that the consent of a minor could not operate as a mitigating factor for an offence under POCSO, as treating such consent as legally exculpatory would undermine the protective purpose of the statute.

The Court also considered the emerging “Romeo-Juliet clause” discussed by the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh & Another. It observed that the proposed exception was intended to address cases involving adolescent relationships between persons of similar age and had not been incorporated into POCSO. However, the Court distinguished the present case because the victim had subsequently married another person and had a child. Applying the proposed framework here could potentially disrupt her existing family life. The Court therefore declined to apply it and clarified that the decision was based on the merits of the case.

Order of the Court

The High Court found no contradiction or perversity in the Special Judge’s findings and dismissed the appeal, thereby upholding the conviction and sentence.

Written by Adv. K. Sri Hamsa