The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has underscored a fundamental principle of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act): a minor’s consent carries no legal recognition, even when the relationship is described as romantic or consensual.
A Division Bench comprising Justices N. Anand Venkatesh and K.K. Ramakrishnan made the observation while deciding an appeal filed by a man convicted under the POCSO Act in connection with a relationship involving a school-going girl who was below 18 years of age at the relevant time.
The appellant argued that he was around 19 years old when the relationship began and that the case arose from a consensual relationship between two young individuals who understood the nature of their actions. According to him, the POCSO Act was never intended to criminalise such teenage relationships.
The High Court, however, declined to accept the contention. It observed that while the argument may appear emotionally appealing, the statute provides no exception for romantic relationships involving children. The Bench noted that the legislation was enacted to protect minors from sexual offences and does not envisage a situation where a child can legally consent to sexual activity.
The judges stressed that accepting consent as a defence in such cases would undermine the very purpose of the law. Since a person below 18 years is legally incapable of giving consent, any sexual relationship involving a child would attract the provisions of the POCSO Act regardless of the nature of the relationship.
The case stemmed from allegations that the accused had known the victim since her middle-school years. The prosecution claimed that after promising marriage, he repeatedly engaged in sexual relations with her while she was studying in Class XI, resulting in pregnancy. It was further alleged that he later refused to marry her because of her caste background and told her to “go and die” when she sought marriage, following which she allegedly attempted suicide by consuming poison.
The victim subsequently gave birth to a child during treatment at a hospital, and a criminal case was later initiated on the complaint of her mother.
A trial court had convicted the accused under the POCSO Act, provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and for attempting to abet suicide. He was awarded imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life under the POCSO law.
While affirming the finding of guilt under the POCSO Act, the High Court granted partial relief. It set aside the conviction under the SC/ST Act, observing that the relationship and sexual acts were not shown to have been motivated by the victim’s caste identity. The Bench found that the prosecution evidence pointed to a continuing relationship rather than conduct driven by caste-based discrimination.
The Court also acquitted the accused of the charge relating to abetment of suicide. It held that the alleged remark asking the victim to “go and die,” by itself, did not amount to the legal requirement of instigation necessary to sustain such a conviction. The judges further noted medical evidence that cast doubt on whether poison had actually been consumed.
On the question of punishment, the Bench pointed out that the alleged offence had occurred before the amendments introduced to the POCSO Act in August 2019, which enhanced penalties for certain offences. Since criminal laws imposing harsher punishment cannot be applied retrospectively, the Court held that the amended sentencing provisions could not govern the case.
Consequently, while maintaining the conviction under the POCSO Act, the High Court reduced the sentence to ten years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹5,000.
The ruling reiterates that under the existing framework of the POCSO Act, the existence of a romantic or consensual relationship cannot dilute criminal liability where one of the parties is a child under the law.
