Delhi HC grants bail to man facing charges of rape under POCSO Act, but says minor’s consent can’t be said to be valid
The Delhi High Court recently released a 21-year-old man charged with rape under the POCSO on bail.
Judge Subramonium Prasad's single court stated: "If you look at the ages of the petitioner and the petitioner, they were both romantically attracted to each other and their relationship was consensual." The court cannot fail to see that the (young) petitioner is now only 21 years old and has a full life ahead of him. This court cannot annul their friendship either, since both students were in the same school ”.
The complainant had reported to the FIR that she went to her friend's house in June 2020, during the national Covid19 ban, to look for books to borrow. On the way back, the defendant detained the plaintiff, grabbed her and forcibly took her downstairs to her house and forced her to drink a sedative.
According to the FIR, when the complainant regained consciousness, she found herself lying down with the sheets wet and her body hurting. When she confronted her boyfriend, he told her that he had committed a rape because she did not comply with his friend request.
The FIR came forward in August 2020 after the girl was found to be pregnant, leading to the petitioner's arrest. Subsequently, the petitioner had her pregnancy terminated for medical reasons.
The lawyer Pradeep Rana, who appeared for the petitioner, alleged that the petitioner was improperly involved in this FIR and added that the complainant's family members forced the complainant to present the FIR for violating the friendly friendship between the complainant and the petitioner protested.
Rana alleged that the petitioner was 21 years old and was continuing his education in the open learning modality at the University of Delhi and was deeply rooted in society.
APP Meenakshi Chauhan denied the request for bail, stating that even if the petitioner and the complainant were friends and still in a relationship, it would result in the sixth clause under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, which states that the sexual intercourse with the consent of a girl under the age of 18 would still constitute rape and would be punishable by law. He also alleged that the complainant had become pregnant as a result of the physical injuries that the complainant had inflicted on her, which forced her to medically terminate her pregnancy and caused psychological trauma to the petitioner.
The High Court concluded that the plaintiff had made three different statements, taking into account the girl's statement that she did not want to continue with the case and continue with her life.
“Consensual sex is in a legal gray area because consent given by minors cannot be described as valid consent in the eyes of the law. What has become a mundane and unfortunate practice is for police to file POCSO cases at the urging of a girl's family who reject her friendship and relationship with a boy. Therefore, the severity of the law is incorrectly applied and then abused, "the court said. The court determined that the age of the petitioner and the prosecutor, the photo that categorically indicated a relationship between the two and the discrepancies in the statements under the time of MLC records, the FIR and section 164 CrPC opinion are all mitigating factors that tip the balance toward rescuing the defendant.
The court further noted that the complaint was apparently filed at the behest of the family, " to avoid social embarrassment and medically terminate the pregnancy, this FIR was presented, which gives it the color of sexual exploitation "and put it within the scope of the POCSO Law, which provides for the abolition of child abuse."