The Himachal Pradesh High Court has clarified that even if a minor girl claims to be above 18 years of age or her Aadhar card shows her as a major, it does not help the accused facing charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
The ruling came from a single-judge bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla, which dismissed the bail plea of an accused booked under Sections 363, 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the POCSO Act.
Case Background
- The case began with an FIR lodged on May 20, 2024, by the victim’s father. He alleged that his daughter, born in August 2007, had gone missing from home without informing anyone.
- The complainant suspected that the petitioner (accused) had kidnapped her.
- Police later traced the girl, who initially claimed that she had left home on her own and denied any illegal act by the accused.
- However, forensic examination showed that DNA samples from the victim’s body and clothes matched the accused’s blood sample.
- In a supplementary statement, the girl disclosed that she had been raped.
The accused applied for regular bail and argued that:
- The victim carried her Aadhar card, which showed her date of birth as January 1, 2005, making her a major.
- She had also told him that she was above 18 years old.
- On this basis, the accused claimed that there were reasonable grounds to believe the victim was not a minor.
On the other hand, the Additional Advocate General (AAG) opposed bail, submitting that:
- The accused had committed rape on a minor girl, which is a heinous offence.
- The forensic report clearly supported the prosecution’s case.
- Since only one prosecution witness out of 31 had been examined so far, releasing the accused could affect a fair trial.
Read Also:- Madras High Court Denies Wife Interim Maintenance, Orders Support Only for Son
The High Court rejected the accused’s arguments and made important observations:
- Referring to the Supreme Court judgment in Saroj & Ors. v. Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co. (2024), Justice Kainthla said: “An Aadhar card is not proof of date of birth. Therefore, the entry showing 01.01.2005 cannot help the petitioner.”
- On the plea that the victim misrepresented her age, the Court relied on the English case of Reg. v. Prince (1875), which has been consistently cited in criminal law. It held that: “A girl’s false statement of being older does not absolve the accused if she is, in fact, under the statutory age.”
- The Court stressed that: “The POCSO Act was enacted to protect children from themselves as well as from others who are minded to prey upon them. Consent is no defence to offences under POCSO.”
Read Also:- Madras High Court Allows Vinayagar Chaturthi Celebrations with Strict Eco-Friendly Guidelines
Considering the forensic evidence, the minor status of the victim, and the fact that the trial was still in an early stage, the Court held that this was not a fit case for granting bail.
Accordingly, the bail petition was dismissed. The Court clarified that its observations are limited to bail proceedings and will not affect the merits of the ongoing trial.
Case Title: State of Himachal Pradesh vs. [Accused]
Court: Himachal Pradesh High Court
Case Type: Regular Bail Application
FIR Date: 20 May 2024
