[POCSO] No need to check girl’s school records for birth date prior physical relationship : Delhi High Court
D.D- 24.08.2022
According to a recent ruling by the Delhi High Court, a person is not required to judicially examine a girl’s date of birth by checking her school records to ensure that she is not a juvenile before engaging in physical contact with her [Hanzla Iqbal v. State].
When granting bail to a man accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act (POSCO Act), a single judge bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh stated that the mere fact that the woman had an Aadhar Card proving she was an adult at the time of the sexual relationship would be sufficient for the accused to believe he was not engaging in a physical relationship with a minor.
“A person who is in a mutually agreed-upon physical relationship with another person is not compelled to judicially examine that person’s date of birth. Before beginning a personal relationship, he is not necessary to check her school records for her birthdate, Aadhar card, or PAN card “The Court emphasised.
A guy who had been arrested for both offences under the POCSO Act and for rape under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) had requested bail.
In the case of the prosecutrix, she and the applicant traded phone numbers and grew close. After that, the applicant took her to a hotel in September 2019 to start a physical relationship.
When the prosecutrix went to purchase the accused’s washing machine, she got to know the defendant.
After exchanging phone numbers, they grew close.
However, he later invited her to a hotel, engaged in a sexual encounter with her, and recorded the entire thing on film.
It was her claim that the defendant afterwards used the film to extort her into engaging in sexual intercourse with various individuals.
Additionally, it was claimed that sometime in August 2021, the prosecutrix broke free from the applicant’s home where she had been imprisoned. She then allegedly contacted a female lawyer who assisted her in filing a First Information Report (FIR) against the accused.
However, the defence attorney for the accused contended that the prosecutrix has been using her date of birth to her advantage in order to use the POCSO Act against him.
The attorney further stated that even if the incident occurred in September 2019, the prosecutrix never provided an explanation or justification for why the relevant FIR was only filed on April 30, 2022.
Furthermore, it was claimed that the prosecutrix had four different dates of birth, with the Aadhar card listing a date of birth of January 1, 1998 and the PAN card listing a date of birth of February 25, 2004.
The prosecutrix was extorting money from the applicant, and the applicant refused to give in to her unlawful demands, the attorney said, so he filed a FIR.
The applicant’s attorney also claimed that the police’s investigation was inadequate, that financial transactions indicating that the applicant had deposited money into prosecutrix’s account were not looked into, that the complainant’s Aadhaar was not verified, and that there had been no inquiry into prosecutrix’s numerous Instagram accounts.
The bench believed that there was considerably more going on in the case at hand than first appeared.
“She has been dating the applicant since 2019, according to the prosecutrix’s own evidence and the FIR’s case. Nothing prevented the prosecutrix from contacting the police sooner if the applicant had blackmailed her, “The Court made a note. Considering the day of birth The prosecutrix was expected to be a major on the day of the alleged incident, the bench noted, because her date of birth on the Aadhar card was shown as January 1, 1998. Therefore, no POCSO claim is supported.
The Court did emphasise, however, that a trial is the only way to establish the applicant’s claim that the Aadhar card was forced onto her. The Court also saw transfers of sizable sums of money in the prosecutrix’s favour, hinting that it might be a honey trap.
“In one bail application, BAIL APPL. 2813/2020, captioned “Kapil Gupta vs. State,” this Honorable Court noted instances where innocent people were lured into honey traps and had significant sums of money stolen from them.
The Commissioner of Police had been ordered by this Court to personally check into the situation and look into cases of honey traps.”
In light of this, the Commissioner of Police was instructed to conduct a thorough investigation into the prosecutrix and determine whether or not she has filed a similar FIR against any other individuals in Delhi.
Advocates Amit Chadha, Arpit Bhalla, Antim Chadha, and Anjali Dhingra defended the applicant, while Aashneet Singh and Astha defended the prosecutrix.
HANZLA IQBAL
Vs
THE STATE & ANR.
