Madras HC Upholds 10-Year POCSO Sentence For 30-Year-Old Who Sexually Assaulted 15-Year-Old, As Consent Was No Defence

The prosecution alleged that the first accused, aged 30, took the 15-year-and-4-month-old victim from her home, induced her to believe that they were married, and sexually assaulted her.

The second accused allegedly assisted in taking the victim to different places and arranged shelter; the third accused allegedly abetted the offences and permitted use of his SIM card.

The victim’s father reported her missing on 8 June 2019; she was located on 12 June and disclosed the alleged events.

The trial court convicted the first accused under Sections 5(l) read with 6 of the POCSO Act, and Sections 366 and 343 of the IPC; it convicted the second and third accused of abetment-related offences under the IPC and POCSO Act. The fourth accused was acquitted. The first, second and third accused appealed

The Court applied Sections 366, 366A, 109 and 343 of the Indian Penal Code, and Sections 5(l), 6, 16 and 17 of the POCSO Act.

It held that a minor victim’s consent to a relationship is immaterial to the first accused’s liability for the offences established on the evidence.

It further held that abetment of an IPC offence does not, without evidence addressing the distinct elements of the POCSO offence, establish abetment under the POCSO Act; the alleged conduct and evidence must support each offence separately.

No precedent was cited.

The victim’s age was proved by her birth certificate and was not disputed. Although her testimony and the surrounding evidence suggested that she had voluntarily gone with the first accused, her minority meant that consent did not defeat his liability. The evidence of the victim, family members, auto driver and occupants of the house where the victim stayed supported the findings against him.

As to the second accused, the evidence that he accompanied the victim and first accused and helped arrange shelter supported abetment of the IPC offence, but did not establish abetment of a POCSO offence; the charge’s factual particulars and the evidence did not demonstrate such abetment.

Against the third accused, the victim’s allegation that he assured the first accused he would handle the consequences was not corroborated by her earlier statement, and the alleged SIM card was not seized. The Court found no other evidence supporting the charges.

It partly allowed the second accused’s appeal: it acquitted him of the POCSO charge, retained his conviction under Section 366 read with Section 109 of the IPC, and reduced his sentence to the period already undergone; the fine and default sentence remained unchanged.

It allowed the third accused’s appeal, set aside his convictions, acquitted him of all charges, and directed that any fine paid be refunded and any bail bond discharged.