Victim Has Locus To Request Court To Summon Witnesses Under Section 311 CrPC In State Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Order 2 Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Ground to Reject a Plaint: Supreme Court Draws Crucial Distinction Between Bar to Sue and Bar by Law No Right to Lawyer Before Advisory Board in Preventive Detention — Unless Government Appears Through Legal Practitioner: Supreme Court Wife's Dowry Statement Cannot Be Used to Prosecute Her for 'Giving' Dowry: Supreme Court Upholds Section 7(3) Shield Husband's Loan Repayments Cannot Reduce Wife's Maintenance: Supreme Court Raises Amount to ₹25,000 From ₹15,000 Prisoners Don't Surrender Their Rights at the Prison Gate: Supreme Court Issues Binding SOP to End Delays in Legal Aid Appeals A Judgment Must Be a Self-Contained Document Even When Defendant Never Appears: Supreme Court on Ex Parte Decrees Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title Erroneous High Court Observations Cannot Be Used to Stake Property Claims: Supreme Court Steps In to Prevent Misuse of Judicial Observations No Criminal Proceedings Would Have Been Initiated Had Financial Settlement Succeeded: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail In Rape Case Directors Cannot Escape Pollution Law Prosecution by Claiming Ignorance: Allahabad High Court Refuses to Quash Summons Against Company Directors Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Court Cannot Peek Into Defence While Rejecting Plaint: Delhi High Court Death 3½ Months After Accident Doesn't Break Causal Link If Doctors Testify Injuries Could Cause Death: Andhra Pradesh High Court LLB Intern Posed as Supreme Court Advocate, Used Fake Bar Council Card and Police Station Seals to Defraud Victims of Rs. 80 Lakhs: Gujarat High Court Rejects Anticipatory Bail Husband Who Travels to Wife's City on Leave, Cohabits With Her, Then Claims She 'Never Lived With Him' Cannot Prove Cruelty: Jharkhand High Court Liquor Licence Is a State Privilege, Not a Citizen's Right — No Vested Right of Renewal Survives a Change in Rules: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Stay on E-Auction Policy Court Holiday Cannot Save Prosecution From Default Bail: MP High Court No Search At Your Premises, No Incriminating Document, No Case: Rajasthan HC Quashes Rs. 18 Crore Tax Assessment Under Section 153C Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court

Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors

22 September 2024 11:21 AM

By: sayum


On September 12, 2024, the Patna High Court delivered a significant ruling in Vikash Sah v. The State of Bihar, upholding the appellant's conviction and life sentence for the rape of a minor under Section 376(1) of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The court dismissed the appellant's claims of a consensual relationship, emphasizing that any sexual activity with a minor constitutes a strict offense.

The case arose from an incident on August 3, 2017, involving the rape of a 17-year-old girl by her neighbor, Vikash Sah. The victim reported that while sleeping in her courtyard, the appellant climbed over the wall, threatened her with a dagger, and committed the rape. Due to fear and threats from the appellant, she delayed reporting the incident until October 24, 2017. The victim's father, upon learning of the crime, returned from Mumbai and lodged a complaint with the police, leading to the appellant's trial and subsequent conviction.

The appellant's defense hinged on the delay in lodging the FIR, suggesting it cast doubt on the accusation. The appellant also argued that the relationship was consensual and questioned the POCSO court's jurisdiction, alleging the victim was not a minor. The defense challenged the reliance on a school certificate to establish the victim's age.

The prosecution countered these arguments by highlighting the victim's fear and the threats that caused the delay in reporting. The prosecution also noted that the victim became pregnant, sought permission for termination from the High Court, and the DNA evidence conclusively matched the appellant with the fetus.

The court found the victim's delay in reporting the crime plausible, given the threats made by the appellant. The court noted that the victim's father corroborated her account, stating he acted promptly upon learning of the incident. The investigating officer, Indira Rani (PW-3), testified that the victim was a minor based on a school certificate, which went unchallenged during the trial.

The court dismissed the appellant's argument about the consensual nature of the relationship, noting the strict liability imposed by the POCSO Act for sexual activity with minors. The judgment emphasized, "There can be no presumption that two young persons if they are neighbours are bound to get physically attracted to each other." It further clarified that even if the relationship had been consensual, the appellant's actions constituted an offense under the POCSO Act.

The court also rejected the defense's argument regarding the lack of recent signs of sexual intercourse and discrepancies in the pregnancy timeline, considering the significant time elapsed since the incident and the victim's intention to terminate the pregnancy.

The High Court upheld the life imprisonment sentence of Vikash Sah, confirming the trial court's judgment. The court's ruling underscores the legal principle that any sexual liaison with a minor, irrespective of consent, is a punishable offense under the POCSO Act.

Date of Decision: September 12, 2024

Vikash Sah v. The State of Bihar

Latest Legal News