The Karnataka High Court recently stated that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act was designed not to penalize consensual sexual relationships among adolescents but to shield them from sexual abuse [G Raghu Varma v. The State Of Karnataka].
Justice Hemant Chandangoudar made this remark while dismissing a criminal case against a 21-year-old who faced charges under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the POCSO Act, and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act for marrying a minor girl.
The Court opined that the accused and the minor girl come from a lower socio-economic section of society with limited access to information, and were thus unaware of the consequences of their actions.
“The object of POCSO Act is to protect minors from sexual abuse and not to criminalize the consensual relationship between two adolescents who had consensual sexual intercourse without knowing the consequences,” remarked the Court.
According to the Bengaluru Police, the accused knowingly married and engaged in sexual activity with the girl despite being aware of her status as a minor. The girl is currently 16 years old.
The accused petitioned the High Court to dismiss the criminal case, arguing that he was in a relationship with the girl and that all actions occurred with her consent.
The survivor and her parents submitted a joint affidavit to the High Court, affirming that the marriage was conducted “unintentionally” and “without knowledge of the law”.
The Court was informed that a male child was born to the couple last year. The girl and the infant are reliant on the accused for their sustenance. The argument put forth was that incarcerating the accused would only exacerbate the hardship faced by the survivor and her child.
Nevertheless, the State objected to the plea, asserting that the offenses in question are severe.
Upon reviewing the arguments, the Court acknowledged that the girl’s parents have indicated their incapacity to support her and the newborn, given their belonging to an economically disadvantaged section of society.
“The petitioner is in judicial custody and is unable to support the survivor and the child. If the criminal proceedings are allowed to continue, it would result in incarceration causing more misery and agony to the survivor and her child rather than securing the ends of justice,” it reasoned.
The Court further said that though having sexual intercourse with a minor even with consent is an offence, it would be appropriate to quash the proceedings, considering the facts and circumstances of the case.
“Otherwise, it would result in miscarriage of justice to the survivor and the child,” the Bench said while quashing the criminal proceedings.
The Court also ordered immediate release of the petitioner from judicial custody.
