Statutory Rape Leaves No Room for Consent—Sexual Act with Minor Per Se Punishable Under POCSO: Madras High Court

“Consent Is Irrelevant Under POCSO: Sexual Act With Minor Is Statutory Rape”, Madras High Court delivered a crucial ruling affirming the life imprisonment of the accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The Division Bench of Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira and Justice R. Poornima clarified that even if a child appears to consent, “any sexual activity involving a minor is treated as an offence” and the POCSO Act makes such consent wholly irrelevant. The Court held that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt through the testimony of the victim, corroborating medical evidence, and a conclusive DNA test that established the accused as the biological father of the child born to the minor.

“Technical Errors in Charges Cannot Defeat Substantive Justice”

The appeal filed under Section 374(2) CrPC challenged the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court at Srivilliputhur, which had earlier convicted Palraj under Sections 363, 341, 342 IPC and Sections 8, 10, and 6 r/w. 5(m) POCSO. The defence argued that the conviction was vitiated due to lapses in framing of charges, including the wrongful application of Section 5(m), which applies only to victims below 12 years of age.

The High Court examined this contention and held: “In judging a question of prejudice, as of guilt, courts must act with a broad vision and look to the substance and not to the technicalities.” Referring to precedents like Willie Slaney v. State of M.P. and Kamil v. State of U.P., the Court clarified that conviction can be modified to the correct provision where evidence establishes the offence, even if the exact charge was not framed.

Accordingly, the conviction under Section 5(m) was set aside and replaced with Section 5(j)(ii) and Section 5(l) POCSO, as the evidence proved repeated penetrative sexual assault that resulted in pregnancy of the minor.

The prosecution established that the 15-year-old victim was confined in the house of the accused, a 37-year-old man, and subjected to repeated sexual assaults, eventually leading to pregnancy. The victim gave birth to a male child, and a DNA test confirmed the paternity of the accused with a 99.9999997% probability. The defence sought to discredit the case by pointing to delay in filing the complaint and questioning the authenticity of the school certificate used to prove the victim’s age.

The Court rejected both arguments. On delay, it observed: “In a country like India, the family’s honour is tied to their daughter’s conduct. Delay in reporting sexual offences is not fatal, as stigma and shame often deter victims from immediate disclosure.” On age determination, the Court relied on Jarnail Singh v. State of Haryana and upheld the validity of the school certificate under Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice Rules, affirming that the victim was a minor.

“No Proof of Mental Retardation – Charge Under Section 9(k) POCSO Fails”

The trial court had also invoked Section 9(k) POCSO on the ground that the victim was mentally retarded. However, the High Court found no medical evidence to support this claim. The bench noted: “The prosecution failed to establish that the victim was suffering from mental or physical disability. On the contrary, her testimony was clear, cogent, and without embellishment.” Consequently, the charge under Section 9(k) was set aside.

The High Court partly allowed the appeal. The conviction under Section 341 IPC was set aside, as wrongful confinement under Section 342 IPC already covered the offence. Similarly, the convictions under Sections 8 and 10 POCSO were quashed as they were part of the same continuous transaction of aggravated penetrative assault.

However, the Court confirmed the convictions under Sections 363 and 342 IPC and modified the POCSO conviction to Section 6 read with Sections 5(j)(ii) and 5(l). The Court sentenced the appellant to seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 363 IPC, one year under Section 342 IPC, and life imprisonment “for the remainder of his natural life” under Section 6 POCSO.

The Court issued stern directions to trial courts to carefully frame charges: “The Court is not bound to frame charges as mentioned in the charge sheet. It must thoroughly examine the records to ensure correct application of law.”

The judgment stands as a decisive reaffirmation that under the POCSO Act, “consent of a child is immaterial and legally void.” By correcting errors in charge framing without allowing them to undermine justice, the Madras High Court ensured that a grave act of child sexual abuse was met with the appropriate aggravated punishment under law.

Date of Decision: 19 August 2025