The Gauhati High Court has held that even if a minor girl willingly leaves her home with an adult and engages in sexual relations with him, her willingness cannot be treated as legally valid consent when she is below 16 years of age. Upholding the appellant's conviction, the Court maintained his sentence of 20 years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, along with a separate five-year sentence under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Background
The case originated from an incident on the night of July 21, 2022, when the appellant, a 27-year-old man and husband of the informant, allegedly took away his 14-year-old sister-in-law from her parental home while the family was asleep. At around 2:00 AM, the girl's elder sister noticed that her husband was missing and soon discovered that her younger sister was also nowhere to be found. Despite searching for them, the family could not trace the girl. The following morning, the elder sister approached North Lakhimpur Police Station and lodged an FIR on July 22, 2022, reporting her younger sister's disappearance. Police registered a case under Sections 363 and 365 IPC and initiated an investigation.
During the investigation, police recovered the girl and apprehended the appellant from the Laluk area. The victim's statement was subsequently recorded before a Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC, and she underwent a medical examination.
The Special Judge (POCSO), Lakhimpur, convicted the appellant under Section 366 IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. He was sentenced to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment under the POCSO Act and five years under Section 366 IPC. Challenging the conviction, he approached the Gauhati High Court.
Before the High Court, the appellant's counsel pointed out inconsistencies in the victim's statements regarding where she had been taken. The defence also questioned the proof of her age and relied on the medical examination, which estimated her age to be between 14 and 18 years.
The State, however, argued that the victim's school admission register and the Headmaster's testimony established her date of birth as January 10, 2009. It further submitted that the medical findings supported the victim's account of sexual intercourse.
Justice M. Zothankhuma examined the school admission register, the certificate issued by the Headmaster and the evidence of the victim's father. The Court found that these records sufficiently established her date of birth as January 10, 2009. Since the incident occurred in July 2022, she was around 13 to 14 years old.
The Court observed:
"Thus, the entry in the admission register of the school, which is the basis for the birth certificate issued by the Headmaster of the school, has been corroborated by the father of the victim. As such, the date of birth of the victim would have to be considered to be 10/01/2009 and in which case, the taking away of a child below 16 years and having sexual intercourse with the said child would attract the offence punishable under section 366 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act."
The Court also considered the argument that the victim might have willingly accompanied the appellant. However, it made clear that her willingness could not be treated as legally valid consent because she was below 16 years of age.
The Bench held:
"Though the evidence of the victim (PW-2) and the Investigating Officer (PW-7) gives rise to an inference that the victim was in love with her brother-in-law and had gone willingly with her brother-in-law from her house, a minor is not capable of giving a valid consent."
Explaining the legal consequence, the Court further observed that even if the girl had willingly accompanied the appellant and engaged in sexual relations with him, her age meant that the conduct attracted the relevant provisions of the IPC and POCSO Act.
Finding no infirmity in the trial court's decision, the Gauhati High Court upheld the appellant's conviction under Section 366 IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
The Court accordingly dismissed the criminal appeal and directed that the trial court record be sent back.
Case Details
Case Title: Raju Gogoi @ Rajen v. State of Assam and Another
Case Number: CRL.A(J)/116/2024
Judge: Justice M. Zothankhuma
Decision Date: 11 November 2026
