In a significant ruling, a division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has firmly refused to suspend or interfere with a stringent 20-year prison sentence awarded to a man convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The case involved a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old girl.
Court Rejects Appeal Based on Subsequent Marriage
The convict, who was awarded 20 years of rigorous imprisonment by a POCSO court in Narmadapuram district, had appealed to the high court. His counsel argued that the victim was a consenting adult as she was 17 years old. It was also highlighted that the man had married the girl while he was out on bail and they now have a child together.
However, the bench comprising Justices Vivek Agarwal and R K Chube dismissed these arguments. The court stated unequivocally that events like marriage during bail or the birth of a child from that union hold no legal weight under the POCSO Act and cannot be grounds for showing leniency.
Why the High Court Said It Could Not Interfere
The core of the court's decision rested on two pivotal legal principles. First, the judges reiterated that under the POCSO Act, the consent of a minor is completely immaterial. A person below 18 years cannot provide legal consent for a sexual relationship.
Second, and crucially, the court addressed the defence's reference to cases where sentences were suspended. The bench noted that in all such precedents, relief was granted by the Supreme Court of India exercising its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. This constitutional provision allows the top court to pass any order necessary for complete justice, a power that High Courts do not possess.
"We are also of the opinion that since in all the three judgments cited by the defence counsel, the supreme court has shown indulgence exercising its authority under Article 142... that authority being not available to the high court, we refuse to show indulgence in the matter," the judgement stated.
Final Disposal and Legal Implications
The bench agreed to take up the appeal for final disposal at the motion hearing stage itself, following a request from the appellant's counsel who acknowledged the legal limitations. The court dismissed the appeal, thereby upholding the original 20-year sentence.
This ruling sends a strong message about the strict interpretation and enforcement of the POCSO Act. It clarifies that subsequent personal developments, like marriage, cannot override the statutory mandate designed to protect minors from sexual exploitation. The judgement underscores that for convicts seeking suspension of sentence under this stringent law, the only possible avenue is the Supreme Court via Article 142, not the High Courts.
