In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court, while upholding the acquittal of an accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, underscored the need to balance legal principles with evolving societal views on adolescent relationships. Justice Jasmeet Singh dismissed the State’s appeal against the acquittal of Hitesh, who was accused under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the incident.
Background of the Case
The case originated from an FIR (No. 317/2014) registered on December 10, 2014, at Jaffarpur Kalan Police Station. The complainant, the prosecutrix’s father, alleged that his 17-year-old daughter, a Class 12 student, had gone missing after leaving for tuition. He expressed suspicion against Hitesh, who was also missing. Two days later, both were apprehended in Dharuhera and brought back to Delhi. Following investigations, Hitesh was charged under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, which pertains to penetrative sexual assault against minors.
During the trial, the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ)-04 (POCSO), South-West, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, acquitted Hitesh on February 10, 2020, citing inconsistencies in proving the prosecutrix’s age. The State, represented by Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, filed an appeal against the acquittal.
Legal Issues Involved
Age Determination of the ProsecutrixA key issue was whether the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the incident. The prosecution relied on school records, showing her date of birth as January 20, 1998. However, her mother testified that her actual birth date was December 22, 1998, creating discrepancies.
Applicability of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015: The High Court referred to Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana (2013), which held that age determination must follow a hierarchical approach, first considering school certificates, then municipal birth records, and lastly, ossification tests. Since the school records were based on an affidavit from the prosecutrix’s uncle (who was not examined), the Court held that they lacked conclusive evidentiary value.
Consent and Applicability of POCSO Act: The prosecution contended that since the prosecutrix was allegedly a minor, her consent was immaterial. However, the High Court observed that the prosecutrix, in her Section 164 CrPC statement, explicitly stated that her relationship with Hitesh was consensual and that she accompanied him willingly. Citing Court on Its Own Motion v. State of NCT of Delhi (2024), the Court emphasized the need for a nuanced approach in cases of adolescent relationships.
Key Observations of the Court
Justice Jasmeet Singh, while delivering the verdict, made the following critical observations:
On Age Determination: “The prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the prosecutrix was less than 18 years old. In the absence of conclusive proof, the benefit of doubt must go in favor of the accused.”
On Adolescent Love: “The legal system must safeguard the rights of young individuals to love while ensuring their safety and well-being. A compassionate approach prioritizing understanding over punishment is necessary in such cases.”
On the Purpose of POCSO Act: “The Act was promulgated for the protection of children, but it did not differentiate between a minor choosing a partner out of her own volition and cases of forced exploitation. This lack of distinction leads to unjust criminalization of adolescent relationships.”
Arguments by the Parties
State’s Argument: The prosecution, led by APP Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, argued that school records proved the prosecutrix’s minor status, making the accused liable under POCSO. They emphasized that consent is irrelevant when dealing with minors.
Defense Argument: The defense, represented by advocates Vinay Kumar Sharma, Prince, Aaditya, and Ritu Kumari, countered that the prosecution failed to establish the prosecutrix’s age conclusively. They cited judicial precedents emphasizing the need for corroboration in age determination. The defense also highlighted that the prosecutrix’s testimony confirmed the consensual nature of the relationship.
Final Judgment
Dismissing the State’s appeal, the High Court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove the prosecutrix’s minority conclusively. Given the consensual nature of the relationship and inconsistencies in age determination, the Court upheld the trial court’s acquittal.
“Convicting an individual under the POCSO Act without definitive proof of the prosecutrix’s age, particularly when the difference between her stated age and majority is only a year or two, would be harsh and unjust.” – Justice Jasmeet Singh
