Mitigation of sentence in POCSO conviction where evidence suggests consensual relationship between adolescent offenders.

The appellant was convicted by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Tikamgarh, for offences under Sections 342 and 323 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, resulting in a life sentence.

The prosecution alleged that on February 18, 2017, the appellant forcibly pulled the 17-year-old victim into a public toilet in a busy market area, bolted the door, and committed sexual assault.

The victim’s siblings allegedly rescued her after breaking the door.

DNA evidence confirmed the presence of the appellant’s DNA on the victim’s clothing and vaginal slide.

The appellant challenged the conviction, citing inconsistencies in witness testimony, the improbability of a forced act in a crowded area, and a likely consensual romantic relationship.

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the sexual act was committed forcibly rather than by consent

2. Whether the victim’s age was legally established to attract the provisions of the POCSO Act

3. Whether the sentence of life imprisonment was proportionate given the mitigating circumstances of the case

Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, regarding penetrative sexual assault on a minor.

Section 323 of the IPC for voluntarily causing hurt.

Principles of proportionality as recently articulated by the Supreme Court in Ehsaan v. State of National Capital Territory of Delhi (2026), which dictates a "tri-fold purpose" of punishment: punitive, deterrent, and protective, balanced against the possibility of reformation.

The Court found the DNA report (Exhibit P-15) conclusively proved sexual contact.

The court questioned the "forcible" nature of the act, noting that the incident occurred in a crowded market near a school and society office.

The court found it "highly improbable" that the victim’s sister would run 1 km to fetch her brothers rather than seeking immediate help from nearby shops.

While the siblings sustained minor injuries, the victim had no abrasions or contusions despite the alleged struggle in a cramped toilet.

The Court ruled that while consent was probable, it was legally irrelevant because the victim was 17 years and 1 month old—verified by school records (Exhibits P-9 and P-10)—making the act a POCSO offence regardless of consent.

Identifying mitigating factors—specifically that the case involved a romantic relationship between two adolescents (aged 19 and 17) and lacked premeditated violence—the Court reduced the sentence of life imprisonment to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.