Pranav B Prem

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has observed that adolescents should be allowed to engage in romantic and consensual relationships without the fear of criminalization. The Court emphasized that the legal system must evolve to ensure that consensual adolescent relationships are not unfairly penalized under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).

Courts Observations

Justice Jasmeet Singh, while dismissing an appeal filed by the prosecution against the acquittal of the accused in a POCSO case, stated: “I believe that societal and legal views on adolescent love should emphasize the rights of young individuals to engage in romantic relationships that are free from exploitation and abuse.” Reaffirming the importance of understanding adolescent emotions, the Court further stated: “Love is a fundamental human experience, and adolescents have the right to form emotional connections. The law should evolve to acknowledge and respect these relationships, as long as they are consensual and free from coercion.”

The Court emphasized that while the legal age of consent serves as an essential safeguard for minors, it should not be used to penalize genuine relationships. It noted: “The legal system must safeguard the rights of young individuals to love while ensuring their safety and well-being. I advocate for a compassionate approach that prioritizes understanding over punishment in cases involving adolescent love.”

Case Background

The case pertained to an appeal filed by the prosecution against the trial court's order acquitting the accused under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The father of the prosecutrix had lodged a complaint about his 17-year-old daughter going missing. During the investigation, it was found that she had willingly left with the accused. The prosecutrix consistently maintained that the relationship was consensual and that the accused did not coerce her.

Age Determination Discrepancy

One of the key aspects of the case was the determination of the prosecutrix’s age. The prosecution relied on school records to claim she was below 18 years at the time of the incident. However, the High Court pointed out discrepancies in these records. It noted: “The prosecution did not examine the uncle of the child victim, whose affidavit was submitted in the school. The prosecution failed to establish on what basis her date of birth was mentioned in the affidavit of her uncle, Ex.PW-10/C. Just on the ground that the date of birth of the child victim was recorded in her school on the basis of her guardian/uncle, particularly when the said guardian was neither her father nor her mother, is not sufficient to prove her age.”

The Court emphasized that under Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, age determination must follow a structured approach, requiring credible documentary evidence or medical examination when necessary. The Court ruled that the prosecution had failed to conclusively prove the prosecutrix’s age beyond reasonable doubt.

Consent and the POCSO Act

The High Court reiterated that while the POCSO Act was enacted to protect minors from sexual exploitation, it does not differentiate between exploitative conduct and consensual relationships among adolescents. The judgment acknowledged that in cases where the prosecutrix is close to 18 years, criminalizing consensual relationships could be harsh and unjust. “The POCSO Act was promulgated for the protection of children. The Act, however, did not choose to draw any distinction as to a girl of less than 18 who chooses a partner out of her own choice and volition. Therefore, any sexual act or intercourse by a man with such a girl would constitute an offence under various provisions of the POCSO Act of 2012.” However, the Court clarified that cases involving minors below 14 or 15 years must be treated differently, as the age gap in such cases is significant and could amount to exploitation.

Verdict

In dismissing the prosecution’s appeal, the High Court reaffirmed that adolescent relationships must not be criminalized without clear evidence of coercion or exploitation. It held that the prosecutrix was unwavering in her assertion that the relationship was consensual and that the prosecution failed to prove her minority beyond reasonable doubt. The Court concluded: “Therefore, the age of majority as prescribed, must be construed and interpreted in the context of the law for which it is being considered and in a case of this nature, where the minor is certain and unshaken in her opinion and desire, it would not be right and proper for this Court to brush aside her views on the ground that she is not 18 years of age as on date and is only 16 years, 10 months, 21 days old.”

Cause Title: State V. Hitesh

Case No: CRL.L.P. 10/2022

Bench: Justice Jasmeet Singh

[Read/Download order]