Punjab and Haryana High Court Firm on POCSO: Minor's Consent Legally Irrelevant
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has taken a strong stance in a recent case involving allegations of sexual assault against a minor. Justice Alok Jain dismissed a plea for anticipatory bail filed by a 19-year-old accused, emphasizing that serious charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act cannot be diluted by later claims of consent.
Court Rejects Defense Arguments
During the hearing on January 16, advocate Manbir Singh Batth represented the accused. He argued that the 15-year-old prosecutrix was mature and aware of her actions, claiming the relationship was consensual. The defense also presented a school attendance certificate to suggest the accused was present in school at the time of the incident. Additionally, they relied on an affidavit from the complainant stating the FIR was lodged under a mistaken belief and the accused was innocent.
However, Additional Advocate General Japjot Singh, appearing for the Punjab Government, strongly opposed the bail plea. The court sided with the prosecution, noting that the prosecutrix had maintained her allegations in her statement before the trial court. Justice Jain found the complainant's later affidavit taking a contrary stand troubling, stating such matters require thorough investigation.
"Playing Hide and Seek with the Law"
Justice Jain made it clear that litigants cannot be allowed to "play hide and seek with the law." He emphasized that citizens cannot declare someone innocent after an FIR is registered; only the court can assess the truth of allegations. The judge warned that if the FIR is found false, action could be taken against the complainant, and if the affidavit is misleading, consequences would follow.
On the specific issue of consent, the court was unequivocal. Justice Jain reiterated that the consent of a minor is legally irrelevant under POCSO. He held that claims of a consensual relationship, chats, or photographs do not alter the legal position, especially when the victim was only 15 years old. The court also noted that minor discrepancies in the FIR's timing would not fatally weaken the prosecution's case.
Importance of Custodial Interrogation
The court highlighted the necessity of custodial interrogation in this case. Justice Jain expressed concern that the later affidavit might have been filed under pressure or coercion. "In light of the above, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be of much importance," the court stated before dismissing the anticipatory bail petition.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to protecting minors and ensuring that serious allegations are thoroughly investigated, regardless of subsequent retractions or claims of consent.
