Introduction:

The Supreme Court recently overturned a Calcutta High Court judgment in which a 25-year-old accused was acquitted under the POCSO Act. The Calcutta High Court relied on the nature of the relationship between the victim and the accused and the living situation of the Victim. The Supreme Court took suo moto cognizance of the matter and overturned the ruling stating that serious offences like rape cannot be set aside because of settlement between the victim and accused.

Facts Of the Case:

The accused was earlier convicted for the offenses punishable under Section 6 of POCSO and Sections 363, 366 IPC with regards to kidnapping and inducing minor girl (14 years) in forcible sexual relationships. The accused was convicted for 20 years imprisonment under the POCSO Act and shorter sentences were handed down to him on IPC offenses. The victim also became pregnant with the accused, and it was determined that he is indeed the biological father of a child born.

The court had also dismissed the charges under the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 as there was no evidence available that a marriage has taken place.

The High Court, however, acquitted the convict-appellants from the conviction under Sections 363 and 366 IPC of kidnap charges as also Section 6 POCSO Act on account that the victim and accused had been living together and the mother of the victim had disowned her. 

The matter was taken up as  Suo Motu writ petition, at the directions of Chief Justice of India and by lodging an appeal by State against acquittal. The Supreme Court heard arguments from senior counsel for the State and those appearing in defense of the accused, as also amicus curiae who gave invaluable inputs.

Background Of the Case:

Ms. Madhavi Divan, appearing as amicus curiae, criticized numerous problematic and objectionable extracts from the impugned judgment. These HC’s comments displayed gender stereotypes, as well accusations related both adolescent sexuality and legal ability for self-determination.

The HC judgment starts unfortunately with debasing a woman’s  appearance in court. The court also issued a statement on how young adolescents having sex were part of the course and went as far as to attribute it “to climate change and social media” without addressing the legal framework around sexual exploitation which is designed by the legislature under POSCO.

The HC verdict had also asked the parents to inculcate good values as well amongst male children from childhood teaching them women’s dignity, and respect for autonomy. And told adolescents to stop having casual sex. Lastly, the impugned judgment indicated that teenage consensual relationships cases should be perceived on a case-to-case basis and relied upon jurisprudentially agreeing to disagree recognizing a varied set of opinions or approach by Judges. In the case in question, it found that this relationship was consensual and not exploitative, so granted leniency on account of a minor age difference between adolescent girl and older boy.

Supreme Court’s Observation:

The Supreme Court reviewed the ruling of the Calcutta High Court that discussed the idea of “exploitative sexual acts” when addressing severe offenses under Section 376(2)(n​) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC​) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO). The Supreme Court disagreed with the belief that engaging in an act with a minor (in this instance a 14-year old​) could be considered as “non exploitative”.

The High Court also discussed the concept of “adolescents” and consensual relationships in its comments by implying that existing laws restrict the freedom of adolescents in consensual relationships and proposing the decriminalization of consensual sexual activities involving individuals, over 16 years old. The Supreme Court dismissed these points as irrelevant and unsuitable for this case since the victim was 14 years old and the accused was 25 years old.

The POCSO Act and other laws were enacted to protect children from sexual abuse, according to the Supreme Court, which reversed this decision and said that sexual acts with minors are prohibited even in situations where agreement is given. It decided that the High Court’s justification for the accused’s acquittal could not stand in light of the clear and present evidence of the rape offense under Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC.

The SC also pointed out that, based on precedents, serious offences such as rape cannot be quashed on the grounds of settlement between the accused and the victim. Therefore, it ruled that the High Court’s acquittal of the accused was legally unsound.

Court’s Decision:

The accused was twenty-five years old at the time of the occurrence, while the victim was fourteen, according to the Supreme Court. The victim’s statement and other proof verified that the accused had sexually assaulted her deeply, causing her to become pregnant. The Court determined that this qualified as severe penetrative sexual assault under POCSO Act Section 6.

The Court determined that the HC erred in its use of its jurisdiction under section 482 to overturn the conviction. The Court emphasized that compassion or the victim’s present circumstances could not be used as grounds for the High Court to overturn the conviction.

The court cited the Gian Singh v. State of Punjab judgment, which established those certain violent crimes, including as rape and murder, cannot be absolved based only on an agreement reached between the offender and the victim. The Court decided that the HC could not properly quash the prosecution, even in the event that a settlement was made.

The conviction of the accused for the offenses under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 376(2)(n) and 376(3) of the IPC was reinstated by the Supreme Court, which overturned the HC’s decision. Regarding the accusations brought against the accused under Sections 363 and 366 of the IPC, the Court upheld their acquittal.

The victim needed help making decisions about her future, so the court ordered the West Bengal government to assemble a committee of three specialists, including a social scientist and a clinical psychologist. The assistance provided by the State to the victim and her child will also be examined by this committee. The State was instructed by the Court to furnish the committee with specifics regarding the methods of support and guarantee the submission of the committee’s recommendations by October 18, 2024.

In addressing instances under the POCSO Act, the Supreme Court underlined that all parties involved—including the judiciary—must reflect on their actions and make necessary adjustments.

Credit- By Anaida Khan Pursuing 5th year of BALLB (Hons.) from Dharmashashtra National Law University, Jabalpur