The Delhi High Court recently upheld the acquittal of Hitesh in a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The Court emphasized the prosecution’s failure to conclusively prove the victim’s age and highlighted the importance of distinguishing between exploitative acts and consensual adolescent relationships.
Case Background
The case stemmed from a 2014 FIR filed by the father of a 17-year-old girl who alleged that Hitesh had sexually assaulted his daughter. The prosecution claimed the victim was a minor, while the defense argued inconsistencies in age proof and highlighted her consent. The trial court acquitted Hitesh in 2020, prompting the State to appeal.
Read Also:- NEET Qualification Mandatory for MBBS Abroad: Supreme Court Ruling
Justice Jasmeet Singh stressed the necessity of adhering to Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act, 2015, which mandates strict protocols for determining a minor’s age. The prosecution relied on school records showing the victim’s birthdate as January 20, 1998, but these records were based on an affidavit by her uncle, who was not examined as a witness.
“School records alone cannot suffice unless corroborated by the person who provided the age details. The absence of such evidence creates reasonable doubt,” the Court noted.
The victim and her mother testified her birthdate as December 22, 1998, making her 15 years and 11 months old during the incident. However, without corroborative documents like a birth certificate, oral testimony was deemed insufficient under the JJ Act.
Read Also:- Supreme Court: Dowry Demand Not Essential to Prove Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC
The Court acknowledged the victim’s consistent testimony that she willingly accompanied Hitesh and consented to the relationship. Her medical examination revealed no signs of coercion, further weakening the prosecution’s case.
“Adolescents have the right to form emotional connections. The law must prevent exploitation but not punish consensual love,” Justice Singh remarked.
Citing precedents like Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana and Rajak Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the Court reiterated that benefit of doubt must favor the accused in stringent laws like POCSO, especially when age proof is ambiguous.
The judgment called for a balanced approach to adolescent relationships. Justice Singh observed:
“While the POCSO Act safeguards minors, it cannot ignore the reality of consensual relationships. A girl nearing 17, with clear agency, should not have her autonomy dismissed solely due to legal technicalities.”
The Court cautioned against applying POCSO mechanically in cases involving minors close to adulthood, urging lawmakers to reconsider rigid age thresholds. However, it clarified that this leniency would not apply if the victim is significantly younger (e.g., under 15), where age gaps indicate exploitation.
