Consent of Minor Not A Mitigating Factor In POCSO Offence: Calcutta HC

Adolescent love affairs resulting in physical intimacy cannot override statutory protection granted to minors, as the minor's consent holds no legal validity in sexual assault prosecutions.

A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, comprising Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, upheld the conviction and 10-year rigorous imprisonment of a man under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The Court declined to extend the benefit of judicial principles governing adolescent relationships, noting that the victim had since married another individual and settled into a peaceful family life.

Court Observations and Directions

The High Court emphasized that statutory presumptions under the law place the burden heavily on the accused once penetrative sexual assault is established. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "However, a heinous and abhorrent crime of sexual assault, the consent of a minor cannot be treated as a mitigating factor. This would complete disrupt and dislodge the very purpose for which the POCSO Act has been promulgated."

Addressing the applicability of judicial precedents surrounding adolescent relationships, the Court noted: "The purpose of the Romeo-Juliet clause was to give sanctity to a relationship in which two parties of similar age have entered into... The VG having entered into a matrimonial relationship with another person cannot be paired with the appellant herein. The appellant will have to face the consequences of the offence under the POCSO Act."

The Court issued the following directions:
"Let the Trial Court Records be transmitted back forthwith. The Department is directed to forward a copy of this judgement to the Trial Court and also to the Superintendent of the correctional home immediately."

Background

The victim girl, aged 17 years and 10 months at the time of the incident in 2022, entered into a romantic relationship with the 24-year-old appellant. She cohabited with him in a rented house, which resulted in a physical relationship and her subsequent pregnancy. The medical authorities at the local Primary Health Centre reported the matter, leading to an FIR registered by the Kadamtala Police Station.

Following investigation, charges were framed under Section 5(j)(ii) and Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. During the trial before the Special Judge, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses. Significantly, the appellant declined to cross-examine key witnesses, including the victim girl, her mother, and the medical officer. The appellant maintained his innocence during examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 but led no rebuttal evidence.

The Special Judge convicted the appellant on April 15, 2024, and sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment on April 16, 2024. Aggrieved, the appellant approached the High Court arguing that the FIR was not lodged by the victim, that she had turned supportive of him, and that the delayed proceedings along with procedural lapses in recording the initial statement vitiated the trial. The High Court rejected these contentions, citing State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh & Another and distinguishing Shri Roshan Lakra vs. The State and Another, ultimately dismissing the appeal.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRA(DB)/4/2025
Case Title: Rupesh Beck v. The State and Anr.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Alokesh Sarkar
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar (for State), Ms. Gloria Mary (for Victim Girl)

Source: 2026 CaseBase(CAL) 2301