Romantic Relationship Not Exception Under POCSO Act; Child Below 18 Is Incapable Of Giving Consent In Eyes Of Law: Madras High Court

The Court emphasized that in the eyes of law, a child under the age of 18 is legally incapable of giving consent, and any plea of a consensual teenage romance cannot serve as a defense against statutory penal actions.

In August 2019, when the minor victim was a student of the 11th standard, the appellant, who was hardly 19 years at that time, proposed to her and induced her into physical intimacy under the false promise of marriage. The relationship resulted in the minor's pregnancy, and subsequent delivery of a female child on May 6, 2020. It was alleged that the accused person denied responsibility for the pregnancy and refused to marry the victim girl, stating that she belongs to the Scheduled Caste community.

Justice N. Anand Venkatesh and Justice K.K. Ramakrishnan while upholding the conviction of the appellant under the POCSO Act, observed, “…the POCSO Act nowhere contemplates any romantic relationship and grants exception where a child has been subjected to sexual assault or penetrative sexual assault. Even assuming that it was consensual, the very object of the Act is to safeguard the right and interest of the child. There is no question of a child giving consent and such an eventuality is not even contemplated under the POCSO Act. If consent is taken as a ground and the Court acts upon it, it will have very serious consequences and it will militate against the very objective of the POCSO Act. A child below 18 years is incapable of giving consent in the eyes of law and therefore, even in a case where there is consensual romantic relationship with a child, it will attract the provisions of the Act and the concerned person has to face the consequences”.

Advocate A. Thiruvadi Kumar appeared for the appellant and Advocate G. Karuppasamy Pandian appeared for the respondent.

In the matter, it was alleged that when she approached the appellant again, he rebuffed her, allegedly telling her "to go and die". Distressed, the minor attempted suicide by consuming poison, however, she survived and subsequently delivered a female child in a government hospital. A Forensic DNA analysis later conclusively proved that the appellant was the biological father of the child.

The Trial Court had previously convicted the appellant and awarded life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life under Section 5(1), 5(j)(ii) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, alongside various sentences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The defense vehemently argued that the relationship was completely consensual and that the POCSO Act was never intended to weaponize and punish automated interactions or genuine teenage relationships between individuals of matching age groups.

However, the Bench refusing to accept the contention, observed that while the submission sounds "very attractive and romantic", the statutory protections are unyielding.

The Court set aside the appellant's conviction under Sections 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The bench iterated that for an offense to be sustainable under the SC/ST Act, the prosecution must establish the foundational fact that the offense was driven specifically because the victim belonged to the Dalit or Scheduled Tribe community to belittle them.

In this case, the court recognized that the interaction between the two was a product of mutual natural attraction arising out of a multi-year school acquaintance, which did not have "caste as its basis".

“…It is proved through records that the victim girl and boy were acquainted with each other from the time the victim girl was studying in the 8th standard. The actual dispute started much later in the year 2020 when the victim girl was studying in the 12th standard. As stated supra, their relationship resulted in both the accused person and the victim girl engaging in physical intercourse repeatedly. This relationship and consequent physical intercourse was not on account of the victim girl belonging to the Scheduled Caste community and on the other hand, it was a natural attraction between a boy and girl, which never had the caste as its basis. The Section 164 statement (Exhibit P2) and also the deposition of the victim girl makes it clear that it was not a one-off relationship and it was a relationship over a period of time. Therefore, the charge under Section 3(1)(w)(i) of the SC/ST Act has not been made out in this case”, the Bench said.

The appellant was also acquitted of charges under Section 306 read with 511 of the IPC (attempt to abet suicide).

“…As per the case of the prosecution, the accused person is said to have told the victim girl to go and die. That statement made by the accused person by itself will not constitute instigation within the meaning of Sections 107 and 306 of IPC.”, the Bench further observed.

The High Court observed that the 2019 Amendment Act came into effect on August 16, 2019, however, the primary act of penetrative sexual assault in this case occurred in the first week of August 2019 (specifically August 7, 2019), which predated the amendment.

Consequently, the Court partly allowed the appeal, and while it completely acquitted the appellant from the SC/ST Act and IPC 306 charges, it modified the stringent natural life sentence under the POCSO Act.

Accounting for the fact that the appellant was a teenager (hardly 19 years old) at the time of the incident and noting the "adverse impact of hormonal changes that take place in that age", the Court reduced the sentence to 10 years of Rigorous Imprisonment along with a fine of ₹5,000.

Cause Title: Arumugam v. The Deputy Superintendent of Police & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:MHC:2112)

Appearances:

Appellant: A. Thiruvadi Kumar, PNSSM Ammaar, Advocates.

Respondent: .G. Karuppasamy Pandian, Advocate.

Click here to read/download the Judgment