Consensual Nature Of Relationship Irrelevant For Prosecution In POCSO Cases: Delhi High Court
The accused claimed that the relationship was consensual and that the victim was 18 years old at the time of the alleged incidents.
Justice Sanjeev Narula, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court emphasized that the consensual nature of a relationship between the accused and the victim is not relevant for prosecution under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
The accused sought bail after being charged under the POCSO Act. The victim, a 16-year-old girl, had alleged that accused who was married with children, initiated a relationship with her under the pretext of marriage, and the two had physical relations on multiple occasions.
The victim's mother filed a complaint after the girl discovered she was pregnant and took medication prescribed by him to end the pregnancy, which led to severe abdominal pain. Her pregnancy was later confirmed by an ultrasound, prompting her parents to become aware of the situation.
The accused, in his defense, claimed that the relationship was consensual and that the victim was 18 years old at the time of the alleged incidents, questioning her age and the validity of her claim.
A Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula, “This plea of consensual relationship is legally immaterial. Under the POCSO Act, the age of the victim is the decisive factor, and if the victim is below 18 years of age, the law presumes that she is incapable of giving valid consent. The alleged consensual nature of the relationship is, therefore, prima facie irrelevant for the purpose of prosecution under the POCSO Act.”
The Court rejected these arguments, affirming that the age of the victim is the central factor in cases under the POCSO Act.
In the matter of the accused's plea for bail, the Court pointed out that the age of the victim, as per her school records, was clearly established as August 3, 2008, making her under 18 at the time of the alleged events. The Court emphasized that at the bail stage, the prosecution's school records must be taken into account unless proven false. The victim's statements during the trial could not override these records at this stage.
Furthermore, the Court noted that the discrepancies regarding the victim's age were matters to be examined during the trial, not in the bail proceedings.
In rejecting the bail application, the Court said, “The nature of the offence, the age disparity between the parties, and the fact that the trial is still ongoing with key public witnesses yet to be examined are factors that cannot be overlooked. Thus, considering the gravity of the offence, the potential for influencing the witness, and the stage of the trial proceedings, the Court is not inclined to grant bail to the Applicant,”
Cause Title: Mohd. Rafayat Ali v. State of Delhi & Anr.Top of Form
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Tanya Agarwal
Respondents: Advocates Mukesh Kumar, Archit Upadhayay, Shradha Mewati, Karandeep Singh
