On 18.12.2021, a Special POCSO Court at Bombay in the case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Satish Jalinder Shinde held that courts must keep in mind the gravity of the offence committed while awarding a sentence and also try to rehabilitate the Accused within the system.

Facts– The Victim was a 13-year-old girl whose mother (“Complainant”) was working as a maid while the Accused was an 18-year old boy who lived in their vicinity. One day, the Accused obstructed the path of the Victim and declared that he was in love with her. The Victim told the Complainant about this incident. The next day when the Victim was alone at home, the Accused entered and latched the door and then proceeded to sexually assault her. He covered her mouth when she tried to scream and threatened to kill her if she told anybody about the incident. Once the Complainant came back, the Victim told her everything and an FIR was filed.

Arguments-The Accused denied the allegation and claimed that he and the Victim were in love with each other, a fact which was known to the Complainant and both of them were distant relatives, which he didn’t know. The Victim would send him messages on his phone and there were photographs of both of them together. He alleged that the Complainant had beaten him up before filing the complaint. The counsel of the Accused relied on some precedents including the case of Atender Yadav v. State Govt of NCT of Delhi (2013) to highlight that false rape cases are not uncommon and families often tutor the children to file the cases in order to settle their personal scores. They focused on the trauma a person faces when they are falsely accused of rape and also submitted photographs where the Accused and the Victim were celebrating Holi with a group.

On medical examination of the Victim, the doctor reported a fresh injury in the genital area and stated that the possibility of sexual intercourse could not be ruled out. She and the Complainant denied that there was any love affair.

Observations of the Court–

1. The Court noted that there was enough evidence on record to verify the age of both the parties and the Victim was a minor.
2. The fact that both the parties played Holi together did not establish the existence of any love affair between them.
3. The Victim told her mother about the incident as soon as she came from work and the delay in filing the complaint was due to the shock and trauma of the incident.
4. There was no record of enmity or quarrel between the parties to prove the existence of a false complaint.
5. Judging by the evidence on record and the statements of the Victim, it was clear that the Accused made advances towards her and she refuted him but he forcefully had sexual intercourse with her.
6. The Accused ended up in prison because he couldn’t control his lust and ruined a girl’s life. However, he was young and had his entire life ahead of him so there was scope for improvement and he would not repeat the offence.
7. Judge Priti Kumar Ghule commented-

“It is settled position of law that consent of minor is no consent. In   present case testimony  of  prosecutrix   do  not   show   any   consent, irrespective whether she is minor or major. The girls and boys of vicinity do play Holi together, talk to each other. This friendliness is common but accused exceed his limit by thrusting himself sexually on the victim. The accused is young boy of 18 years. He is adult has understanding that a friend is not available for sexual intercourse. Friendliness do not mean right to engage in sexual intercourse against the desire of other person. The accused has, as of right in the guise of being friend, forced himself because of his one sided love and committed this grievous offence. The victim girl’s life is

devastated by this act of accused and accused also has caused a dent to his life at the every early phase of youth.”

The Court considered it appropriate to award the Accused rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and a fine of Rs. 20,000 and also a set-off for the period he spent in prison. It was also held that the Victim would be awarded compensation under scheme of D.L.S.A.

– Vaishali Jain, Advocate & Associate – Child Safety at Work & Rhea Bazaz, Final Year Student, Symbiosis Law School, Pune