Introduction
The Madras High Court has observed that while a consensual romantic relationship cannot be used as a defence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, courts may consider the impact of hormonal changes and youthful age while deciding the quantum of punishment. The Court reduced a life sentence imposed on a young man to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment after taking into account the nature of the relationship and the age of the accused.
Case Background
The case involved an appeal filed by Arumugam, who was convicted by the Additional Mahila and Sessions Judge, Sriviliputhur. The prosecution alleged that the accused and the victim knew each other for several years and developed a romantic relationship while the victim was studying in school.
According to the prosecution, the accused promised to marry the victim and engaged in a sexual relationship with her in 2019. The victim later became pregnant and informed the accused. However, he allegedly denied responsibility and refused to marry her.
When the victim approached him again during the advanced stage of pregnancy, he allegedly told her to die. Following this, she attempted suicide by consuming poison. She was rushed to a hospital, where she later delivered a baby girl.
Based on a complaint lodged by the victim’s mother, a criminal case was registered. The trial court convicted the accused under the POCSO Act, the Indian Penal Code, and provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
Appellant’s Stand
The appellant argued that the prosecution had failed to properly establish the victim’s age. It was also contended that the relationship between the parties was consensual and romantic, with no evidence of force, coercion, or threat.
The defence submitted that the POCSO Act was never intended to punish young individuals involved in genuine romantic relationships entered into with mutual understanding.
Court’s Ruling
A Division Bench comprising Justices Anand Venkatesh and K.K. Ramakrishnan rejected the argument that consent or a romantic relationship could serve as a defence under the POCSO Act.
The Court stressed that a child below 18 years of age is legally incapable of giving consent. Therefore, even where a relationship appears consensual, the provisions of the POCSO Act continue to apply.
The Bench observed that accepting consent as a defence would defeat the very purpose of the legislation, which was enacted to protect children from sexual offences.
After examining the evidence, the Court found that the prosecution had successfully established the victim’s age through school records and the testimony of the headmaster. It also held that penetrative sexual assault had been proved, especially since the victim became pregnant and later gave birth.
However, the Court found that the provisions of the SC/ST Act were not attracted in the present case. It noted that the relationship arose from mutual attraction between the parties and there was insufficient evidence to show that the offence was committed solely because the victim belonged to a Scheduled Caste community.
Sentence Modified
While upholding the conviction under the POCSO Act, the Court took a different view on sentencing.
The Bench noted that the accused was around 19 years old at the time of the incident and had known the victim for a long period. The Court observed that the impact of hormonal changes and youthful emotions during adolescence could not be completely ignored while assessing punishment.
Considering the circumstances of the relationship, the Court held that the life sentence imposed by the trial court was excessively harsh and required modification.
Accordingly, the Court reduced the sentence from life imprisonment to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment while maintaining the conviction under the POCSO Act.
Final Verdict
The Madras High Court reaffirmed that a consensual romantic relationship with a minor is not a valid defence under the POCSO Act because a child below 18 years cannot legally consent to sexual activity. However, the Court held that factors such as the age of the accused, the existence of a long-standing relationship, and the influence of teenage hormonal changes may be relevant while determining the appropriate sentence. As a result, the Court upheld the conviction but reduced the punishment from life imprisonment to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment.
