Calcutta High Court quashes life sentence in POCSO case, citing consensual adolescent relationship, marriage and welfare of their child

The victim, whose date of birth was 25 October 2003, was approximately 17 years old when she entered into a romantic relationship with the appellant and had sexual relations with him. She subsequently became pregnant and gave birth to a girl child. The medical practitioner who examined her lodged FIR No. 32 of 2020 under Sections 5 and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (“POCSO Act”), read with Section 376 of the IPC

The prosecution examined 16 witnesses, including the victim, her mother, medical practitioners, the investigating officer and other witnesses. The Special Court convicted the appellant under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to imprisonment for life, with a fine of ₹2 lakhs, 90% of which was directed to be paid to the victim as compensation

During the pendency of the appeal, the victim stated that she and the appellant had married at a temple on 12 December 2019. The appellant’s sentence was initially suspended, but the suspension was later recalled after allegations of further misconduct and registration of another POCSO case

At the final hearing, the victim sought the appellant’s acquittal, stating that she wished to resume marital life with him and that their daughter was residing with the appellant’s mother

Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had sexual intercourse with the victim and was the biological father of her child, despite the absence of DNA evidence and substantial corroborative evidence?

Whether the victim’s alleged consent, love relationship and subsequent marriage could negate or affect the appellant’s liability under the POCSO Act, when the victim was below 18 years of age?

Whether the High Court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the conviction and proceedings in a non-compoundable POCSO offence, having regard to the victim’s welfare, the parties’ relationship and the interests of their child?

The Court applied Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act, under which aggravated penetrative sexual assault is punishable, and treated sexual intercourse with a person below 18 years as legally non-consensual, irrespective of the minor’s expressed consent or romantic relationship

It also relied on Section 29 of the POCSO Act, which creates a statutory presumption in favour of the prosecution, as submitted by the State

The Court invoked the inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice

The Court further referred to State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh, 2026 INSC 47, and Satish alias Chand v. State of U.P., for a contextual and relationship-sensitive approach in appropriate POCSO cases

Article 21 was also considered in relation to the right of an individual to marry a person of their choice, relying on Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M., AIR 2018 SC 1933

The Court held that the victim’s minority made her consent legally immaterial under the POCSO Act, even though the evidence indicated a relationship based on affection and the parties had subsequently married

However, while examining whether the appellant was responsible for the pregnancy, the Court noted that the prosecution evidence was weak: most corroborative witnesses had no knowledge of the incident, there was no DNA examination, and no witness other than the victim directly attributed the pregnancy to the appellant

The Court nevertheless inferred paternity from the parties’ admitted relationship, marriage, sexual intimacy, pregnancy and the absence of any case that the victim had been involved with another person

Although the Court recognized that the conduct technically constituted an offence under the POCSO Act, it found no evidence of force, violence, aggression or criminal intent and characterized the relationship as one arising from mutual love and affection

Giving predominant weight to the victim’s present wishes, her economic circumstances, her desire to resume marital life, and the welfare and paternal identity of the child, the Court concluded that continuing the conviction and imprisonment would produce an unjust outcome.

It therefore exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice, while expressly distinguishing the separate POCSO case pending against the appellant

The Court clarified that FIR No. 66 of 2023 and POCSO Case No. 22/2023 would proceed independently and would not be affected by this judgment

Pending applications were disposed of and the trial court records were directed to be transmitted forthwith