IBC Moratorium | Criminal Court Cannot Direct Disbursal Of Corporate Debtor's Assets To Complainant Pending CIRP: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Failure To Implead Company As Accused Renders Complaint Fatally Defective; Section 319 CrPC Cannot Be Used To Cure Such Fundamental Defect: Supreme Court 'Last Seen Theory' Alone Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Acquits Man In Murder Case 'Every Lawyer Has A Duty To Act Decently': Supreme Court Modifies Suspension Of Advocate For Misconduct In Court Premises Mere Declaration Of 'Transitional Area' Under Article 243-Q(1)(a) Of Constitution Does Not Automatically Convert Rural Area Into Urban Area: Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Externment Order, Terms Non-Compliance With Natural Justice A "Travesty Of Constitutional Guarantees" 'Certiorari Is Not Appellate': Supreme Court Rejects Plea In Decades-Old Co-operative Society Membership Dispute Victim Must Authorize Settlement: Supreme Court Rules Informants Cannot Quash Criminal Cases Without Real Victim's Consent State Cannot Pick And Choose: Supreme Court Restores Right To Retrospective Regularisation For Daily Wage Employees Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment of Plaint After Commencement Of Trial Cannot Be Allowed Without Proving Due Diligence: Supreme Court Discrepancy Between Ocular Testimony And Medical Evidence Creates Reasonable Doubt: Supreme Court Order VI Rule 17 & Order VIII Rule 6A CPC | Counter Claim Cannot Be Permitted After Trial Concludes When Party Fails To Pay Court Fees Initially: Supreme Court Nominee Holds Insurance Proceeds In Trust For Legal Heirs; Supreme Court Directs Equitable Distribution Pending Succession Proceedings PC Act | Court Must Impose Statutory Minimum Imprisonment Upon Conviction Under Sections 7 And 13(2): Supreme Court Supreme Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Official Caught In Factional Crossfire Retaliatory Counterblasts Cannot Be Used As Weapons Of Harassment: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Complaint Over Civil Land Dispute Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Court Must Defer Question Of Ad-Valorem Court Fee To Evidence When Possession Status Is Disputed: Supreme Court Minor Shortfall In Earnest Money Deposit Does Not Vitiate Auction Sale If It Causes No Prejudice: Supreme Court 'Flimsy And Untenable': Supreme Court Cancels Bail Of Accused In Gruesome 'Petrol-Burning' Murder Case Parity Is Not A Mechanical Mathematical Formula: Supreme Court Rejects Bail Plea Of Murder Accused Article 142 Constitution of India | Supreme Court May Protect Retiral Benefits Of Employees Whose Caste Certificates Are Invalidated In Exceptional Cases Omission Of CGST Rule 96(10) Applies To All Pending Proceedings: Supreme Court Mere Marking Does Not Prove Contents: Supreme Court Clarifies Evidence Law In Testamentary Proceedings Arbitral Tribunal Under Section 16 Of A&C Act Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Determine Arbitrability Of Claims Including Excepted Matters: Supreme Court Arbitration Agreement Can Be Incorporated Into A Personal Guarantee Through A Composite Transaction: Supreme 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