‘Love affair; not a case of sexual assault’: Meghalaya High Court quashes POCSO case

The Meghalaya High Court last week quashed a case registered under the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) against a man who ran away with a 16 years old girl.

The bench of Justice W. Diengdoh observed that “the alleged victim girl had categorically stated that it was not a case of sexual assault but any act, sexual in nature, was a result of consent by both parties based on the bedrock of love”

“Therefore, such an act cannot be construed as an act of sexual assault”, the court opined.

Further highlighting that soon after the alleged victim girl attained marriageable age, the accused and the alleged victim had gotten married having the family members of both sides as witnesses, the court held,

“In cases of this nature, since it is evident that the alleged aggrieved person has indicated that she is no longer interested in pursuing the matter and all those who are involved are also not keen to prosecute the matter, it may perhaps be a futile exercise for the prosecution to ensure conviction of the accused under such circumstance.”

Court referred to the observations made by the Madras High Court in the case of Vijayalakshmi & Anr. v. State Rep. By. Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Erode: Crl. O.P No. 232 of 2021 wherein under a similar set of case facts, the high court had said that-

“Punishing an adolescent boy who enters into a relationship with a minor girl by treating him as an offender, was never the objective of the POCSO Act. An adolescent boy and girl who are in the grips of their hormones and biological changes and whose decision-making ability is yet to fully develop, should essentially receive the support and guidance of their parents and the society at large. These incidents should never be perceived from an adult’s point of view and such an understanding will in fact lead to lack of empathy. An adolescent boy who is sent to prison in a case of this nature will be persecuted throughout his life. It is high time that the legislature takes into consideration cases of this nature involving adolescents involved in relationships and swiftly bring in necessary amendments under the Act. The legislature has to keep pace with the changing societal needs and bring about necessary changes in law and more particularly in a stringent law such as the POCSO Act.”

The court also referred to the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Ranjit Rajbanshi v. State of West Bengal and Ors: C.R.A. No 458 of 2018 wherein, in effect, it was held that-

“48. As such, it cannot be said that the accused was guilty of penetrative sexual assault, as such, since here the act of penetration, even if true, would have to be taken not as a unilateral act of the accused but a participatory moment of passion involving the participation of both the victim and the accused.

49. Although the question of consent does not arise in case of a minor, in order to attract Section 376(1) of the IPC, it had to be established that the alleged offence was committed against the will of the victim. Read in conjunction, the provisions of Section 376 of the IPC and Section 3 of the POCSO Act ought to be construed on a similar footing and cannot incriminate the accused for a voluntary joint act of sexual union.”

In light of the above, court opined that the prayer of the petitioners (the accused, the alleged victim girl, and her father) could be allowed by an exercise of the inherent power of the high court to meet the ends of justice.

Accordingly, court quashed the proceedings in the POCSO case against the accused young man and girl’s father pending before the Court of the Special Judge (POCSO) Shillong and ordered that the petitioners will be set free from any liabilities in the concerned case including discharge of the bail bond, if any.

Facts of the case:

On February 15, 2020, the father of the alleged victim girl, who was then 16 years of age, filed an FIR reporting that his daughter was missing since the previous day but was however brought back the next day by the accused man. He alleged that the accused was the perpetrator who had abducted his minor daughter and had also raped her in the process.

The investigation was accordingly launched and on its completion, the Investigating Officer (IO) filed the chargesheet indicating that a prima facie case under Section 363 IPC read with Section 3(a)/4/9(n)/10 of the POCSO Act, 2012 was found well established against the accused man.

Interestingly, on the basis of the statement of the alleged victim where she had made certain allegations against her father, the IO also impleaded the father as an accused in the case, finding that a case under Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act was found well established against him.

On consideration of the charge, the Special Judge (POCSO), Shillong framed charges against the accused young man under Section 375(a)/375 sixthly/376(2)(n) IPC read with Section 3(a)/5(l)/6 of the POCSO Act and the father of the girl was also made co-accused in the case and charges under Section 354/354A(i) IPC read with Section 7/9(n)/10 of the POCSO Act were framed against him.

Later on, the alleged victim girl submitted that she was in fact in a love relationship with the accused young man and the sexual relations between them were consensual and voluntary. Moreover, as far as the allegations made against her father were concerned, she submitted that she no longer wished to pursue the matter keeping in mind the close relational proximity of the parties.

Therefore, the accused young man, the alleged victim girl and her father moved the high court filing an application under Section 482 Cr.PC seeking a direction to quash the concerned POCSO case.

Case Title: Shri. Manik Sunar & 2 Ors. Vs. State of Meghalaya