Read Bureau Prayagraj.
The Madras High Court recently quashed the conviction of a youth, who was convicted by a trial court under Section 366 of the IPC and Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, for sexually assaulting a minor girl.
Justice N Mala said that the case appeared to be of a consensual relationship between two teenagers, which eventually turned into a dispute due to opposition from the parents. The court remarked that in such cases it is often only the boys who face the consequences.
The court said, “This is a common case where a consensual relationship between teenagers ends due to parental differences. In such cases, the girl is often subjected to family pressure and is later married off elsewhere, following which a criminal case under POCSO is filed against the boy, resulting in him being sent to jail for a long period.”
The court also said that if widespread awareness is spread about the provisions of the law and its stringency under Section 43 of the POCSO Act, such cases can be reduced. The court said that lack of information about the stringent provisions of this law increases the possibility of its misuse.
In this context, the court directed the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu to take immediate steps to ensure effective implementation of Section 43 of the POCSO Act and increase awareness of the law among the general public, children and parents.
The court also suggested that awareness camps be organized in government and private schools and colleges to provide information about the law and its consequences. This case related to the appeal in which the accused had challenged the decision of the Special Court, Nagercoil, in which he was convicted.
According to the prosecution, the girl was 16 years old at the time of the incident. The accused, who was a friend of the girl’s brother, became acquainted with her and later professed his love for her and expressed his desire to marry her. The girl told that her parents wanted to get her married against her wishes, after which the accused took her away from home and married her at his relative’s house. The two were later detained after the District Child Protection Officer received an anonymous call.
However, in the appeal, the accused argued that there was a love affair between the two and the girl had voluntarily decided to go with him. He also said that the girl’s initial statements did not contain any allegations against her and the trial court had erred in relying on her contradictory statements.
The court observed that the prosecution had produced only photocopies of the birth certificate and transfer certificate to prove the girl’s age, while their original documents were available.
Comments are closed.