Court must frame charges under aggravated rape provisions where accused holds situational dominance over a minor victim.

The 16-year-old minor prosecutrix (Revisionist) filed an FIR on 24/12/2025 alleging that Respondent No. 2, the driver of her school transport vehicle, groomed her over several months, abducted her, and committed rape after offering her a drugged beverage

On 23/02/2026, the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Mahidpur, framed charges against Respondent No. 2 under Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, and the POCSO Act

The Revisionist challenged this order before the High Court, seeking the addition of aggravated rape charges under Section 64(2)(i) and 64(2)(j) of the BNS, arguing that the trial court ignored material evidence regarding the victim's inability to give consent and the accused's position of dominance

1. Whether the learned Special Judge committed a material irregularity by framing charges only under Section 64(1) of the BNS while ignoring material evidence in the final report that attracted aggravated provisions

2. Whether the relationship between a school transport driver and a minor student constitutes a "position of control or dominance" under Section 64(2)(j) of the BNS

The court primarily applied Section 64(2)(i) of the BNS, which punishes rape on a woman incapable of giving consent, and Section 64(2)(j), which applies when the perpetrator is in a position of control or dominance over the woman

It relied on the principle established in Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017), which mandates that any sexual act with a girl below 18 years is legally "without consent," as she is incapable of giving it in the eyes of the law

Additionally, the court examined the scope of revisional jurisdiction under Sections 438 and 442 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023

The High Court perused the FIR and statement of the victim, noting her age (16 years) legally precluded the possibility of consent

The Court found that the accused exercised "situational dominance" by utilizing his daily, unsupervised access as a school transport driver to groom and manipulate the minor

The court reasoned that the accused's actions—offering a laced drink, threatening to leak private photographs, and pressuring for religious conversion—demonstrated absolute control over the victim

Consequently, the High Court held that the trial court failed to meticulously peruse the charge sheet and statements, resulting in a "patent illegality" by omitting the aggravated clauses despite prima facie material existing on record

The court set aside the impugned order in part and remanded the matter to the Special Judge (POCSO Act) with a specific direction to add charges under Section 64(2)(i) and Section 64(2)(j) of the BNS, 2023, and proceed with the trial in accordance with the law