Introduction
The Calcutta High Court has made a clear ruling that a minor cannot legally consent to sexual relations, even if the minor says they were in a “love relationship” with the accused. The court upheld the life imprisonment sentence of a 23-year-old man who was convicted of repeatedly sexually assaulting a girl who was aged between 12 and 14 years at the time of the offences. The judgment reinforces the protective purpose of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and criminal law in India.
Facts of the Case
The case began with the prosecution alleging that the accused, initiated a relationship with the girl in 2014 when she was still a minor. The first sexual act took place in November 2016, when the girl was about 14 years old. The prosecution said that he used promises of marriage to persuade the girl to continue the relationship, even though she sometimes resisted. According to the case record, the girl became pregnant in early 2017, and her parents then filed a First Information Report (FIR) at the Narkeldanga Police Station.
During the trial, the defence claimed that the victim’s age was not conclusively proved and argued that the relationship was consensual. The defence also questioned the DNA evidence, saying it was inconclusive, and pointed to the delay between the first act and the filing of the FIR. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for rape and Section 6 of the POCSO Act for aggravated penetrative sexual assault. The trial court sentenced him to life imprisonment and imposed a fine.
The accused appealed to the Calcutta High Court, but the Division Bench comprising Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta dismissed the appeal. The High Court held that the victim’s affection or “love affair” with the accused could not dilute the statutory protection provided for children under the law. The judges stressed that a minor is legally incapable of giving valid consent to sexual relations, no matter the nature of the relationship.
What the Court Says
The High Court examined the evidence thoroughly. The court noted that the victim’s birth certificate was properly seized and exhibited during the trial. The defence had not raised a genuine dispute about her age at the appropriate stage of the trial, and therefore her age as a minor was established. The court referred to legal provisions that require age determination only when there is real controversy.
The judges also addressed the DNA evidence. A scientific report showed that the accused “cannot be excluded” as the biological father of the child born to the victim. The bench rejected the claim that the DNA finding was inconclusive. The court said that this language in a forensic report still supports the prosecution’s case, especially when combined with the victim’s credible statement. The court reiterated established legal principles that the testimony of a minor rape victim, if credible and consistent, does not need additional corroboration.
On the issue of the delay in filing the FIR, the High Court held that the minor’s hesitation was understandable. The court recognized that a child might stay silent due to emotional dependence on the accused and belief in the promise of marriage. The judges said that once the victim discovered she was pregnant and informed her parents, the FIR was filed. The delay, in these circumstances, did not weaken the prosecution’s case.
Implications
By upholding the life sentence, the High Court emphasized that statutory protections for children are absolute. The court directed the State Legal Services Authority (SLSA) to pay ₹1,80,000 (which is 90% of the fine amount) to the victim within 15 days. They also ordered an additional ₹2 lakh compensation to be paid from the state authority’s own funds. The court stated that if the accused was on bail, he must surrender immediately to begin serving his sentence.
This ruling has significant legal and social implications. It confirms that claims of a “love relationship” cannot legitimize sexual acts with minors. The judgment reinforces the strict approach under the POCSO Act, which treats any sexual activity with someone below 18 as exploitative and criminal, regardless of the minor’s perceived consent. The decision underscores that courts will focus on protecting children and giving weight to consistent testimony and scientific evidence. It also makes clear that emotional manipulation, such as promises of marriage, does not lessen the severity of the offence.
The Calcutta High Court’s judgment sends a strong message that adults who engage in sexual conduct with minors will face the full force of the law. It reaffirms the protection of children as a priority in India’s legal system and will likely shape how similar cases are interpreted in future.
