Khushi Bajpai
Published on: 06th August 2022 at 18:07 IST
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act conviction was recently changed by the Madras High Court to the IPC statute pointing out that the victim’s age at the time of the offence had not been proven by the prosecution.
The verdict issued by the Sessions Judge of the Mahaila Court in Salem, wherein the appellant was found guilty of the offence under Section 6 read with Sections 5(k) and 5(j)(ii) of the POCSO Act and Section 506(i) of the IPC, was the subject of an appeal before Justice Bharatha Chakravarthy.
The victim categorically testified before the court that her date of birth was July 27, 1995, not making her a minor at the time of the offence, and the court agreed that her testimony should be taken as her correct age, changing the charges because the prosecution had not produced the victim’s transfer certificate.
The main issue in the case was that the appellant, who was around thirty years old, had forcedly engaged in sexual activity with his neighbour, who was around nineteen years old, leading to her becoming pregnant. The appellant’s sister challenged her when she went to the pharmacy to get drugs to abort the foetus, and as a result, she confessed everything to her father. Therefore, the complaint was lodged.
The complaint was initially filed under Sections 376 and 506(i) of IPC. The victim’s school headmaster provided a certificate during the enquiry identifying the victim’s date of birth as 18.12.1996; consequently, the case was changed to one under the POCSO statute because the victim was under the age of eighteen at the time of the incident.
The victim’s transfer certificate was available at the school, the court said, but the prosecution failed to mark it. Even the victim categorically testified that she was born on July 27, 1995.
The court concluded that the victim’s testimony should be considered as evidence of her actual age, and as a result, the offence would not be covered by the POCSO Act but rather would be punishable under Section 376 of the IPC.
The claim that the act was consensual was rejected by the court as well. The victim’s silence and lack of an urgent complaint to her parents or others, according to the court, does not relieve the appellant. The offender was being tried, not the victim, the court underscored.
The offence would not be covered by the POCSO Act but rather be prosecuted under Section 376 of the IPC since the court determined that the victim’s testimony should be taken into account as proof of her real age.
The court also disregarded the argument that the act was consensual. According to the court, the victim’s silence and lack of an immediate complaint to her parents or others do not absolve the appellant. The court emphasised that the culprit was being tried, not the victim.