The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has reaffirmed that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) does not allow for a defense based on a ‘consensual romantic relationship’ involving a minor. This ruling was delivered in the case of Arumugam Vs DSP, with the Bench comprising Justices N Anand Venkatesh and KK Ramakrishnan.
The Court emphasized that the POCSO Act does not recognize consent from individuals below the age of 18. The case in question involved a young man, approximately 19 years old, who claimed to be in a consensual relationship with a minor girl in the 11th standard. His defense suggested that the POCSO Act should not penalize teenage relationships understood to be consensual.
However, the Court decisively rejected this argument, stating, “The above submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant (accused) sounds very attractive and romantic, but however, the POCSO Act nowhere contemplates any romantic relationship and grants exception where a child has been subjected to sexual assault or penetrative sexual assault.” It further elaborated that the Act’s primary objective is to protect minors, and the notion of consent from a child is not feasible under the Act.
In the appeal case, the accused contested his conviction by the Additional Mahila and Sessions Judge, Srivilliputhur, on charges under both the POCSO Act and the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (SC/ST Act). The prosecution argued that the accused, having known the victim since she was in Class 8, engaged in sexual activity with her, resulting in pregnancy, and later refused marriage on the grounds of caste.
The accused was said to have suggested that the victim “go die” when she pressed for marriage, leading to her attempting suicide. The victim delivered a child while hospitalized, prompting her mother to file charges under the POCSO Act.
More Read
The trial court had initially sentenced the accused to life imprisonment under the POCSO Act, alongside convictions under the SC/ST Act and for attempted abetment of suicide under Section 306 read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court, however, dismissed the argument of consensuality, reiterating that minors cannot legally consent.
Moreover, the Bench acquitted him of charges under the SC/ST Act, determining the relationship’s basis was not caste-related but derived from their long-standing relationship. Similarly, the charge of abetment of suicide was dismissed, as telling someone to “go and die” does not meet the legal threshold for instigation under Sections 107 and 306 IPC, especially with doubts about the victim’s consumption of poison.
Regarding sentencing, the Court noted that the alleged offense occurred before a 2019 amendment to the POCSO Act, thereby ruling out the application of the enhanced penalties retroactively, as per Article 20(1) of the Constitution. Consequently, the Court reduced the sentence to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and imposed a fine of ₹5,000.
More Read
The appellant-accused was represented by Advocates A Thiruvadi Kumar and PNSSM Ammaar, while State counsel G Karuppasamy Pandian represented the prosecution. [Read Judgment]
