A child below 18 cannot consent to sexual activity under POCSO.

The prosecution alleged that the appellant sexually assaulted the victim repeatedly over approximately six months, beginning when she was under 18 years of age.

The victim testified that the appellant had penetrative intercourse with her; medical evidence recorded that her hymen was not intact, although no semen or spermatozoa was detected.

The Mahila Court (FTC), Thanjavur, convicted the appellant under Section 6 read with Section 5(l) of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine.

He appealed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., arguing, among other things, that the relationship was consensual.

Whether the appellant’s conviction and sentence under Section 6 read with Section 5(l) of the POCSO Act were sustainable, including in light of the contention that the relationship was consensual.

Section 5(l), read with Section 6, of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, criminalises aggravated penetrative sexual assault; for penetrative sexual assault, penetration is sufficient and ejaculation is not required.

The court applied the principle that a person below 18 years is a child for purposes of the Act and cannot give legally effective consent to sexual activity; it relied on the Madras High Court Division Bench decision in Arumugam v. Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thiruchuli Utkottam, 2026:MHC:2112, which held that consent or a consensual romantic relationship does not exempt conduct involving a child from the POCSO Act.

The court accepted the victim’s testimony describing repeated penetrative sexual assault and found it corroborated by the medical evidence that her hymen was not intact. The absence of semen or spermatozoa did not undermine the prosecution case because ejaculation was not necessary to establish penetration.

It rejected the appellant’s consensual-relationship argument, holding that, as the victim was under 18, any purported consent could not defeat liability under the POCSO Act; the Division Bench’s decision in Arumugam bound the court.

The court dismissed the appeal, and upheld the conviction under Section 6 read with Section 5(l) of the POCSO Act and the sentence imposed by the Trial Court.