A) Abstract / Headnote

This case examines the scope and application of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) concerning sexual offenses against minors. Central issues include whether consensual relationships among adolescents can mitigate legal consequences under the POCSO Act, the duty of the judiciary in evaluating evidence in sexual offenses, and the obligations of the State under welfare statutes. The Supreme Court scrutinized a High Court judgment that overturned the conviction of a 25-year-old under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 376(2)(n) and 376(3) of the IPC. The case also addressed systemic failures in providing adequate care and protection to minor victims under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Ultimately, the Court restored the trial court’s conviction while issuing guidelines for strict compliance with welfare obligations under relevant laws.

Keywords: POCSO Act, Section 6, Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault, Section 376 IPC, Juvenile Justice Act, Minor’s Consent.

B) Case Details

• Judgement Cause Title: In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents
• Case Number: Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3 of 2023
• Judgement Date: August 20, 2024
• Court: Supreme Court of India
• Quorum: Hon’ble Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan
• Author: Justice Abhay S. Oka
• Citation: [2024] 8 S.C.R. 575
• Legal Provisions Involved:
  • Section 6, POCSO Act, 2012
  • Sections 363, 366, and 376(2)(n) of the IPC
  • Section 19(6), Juvenile Justice Act, 2015
  • Article 21, Constitution of India
• Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any): The Supreme Court overruled the High Court’s acquittal judgment in this case.
• Case is Related to: Criminal Law, Constitutional Law, Child Rights, Juvenile Justice, and Welfare Law.

C) Introduction and Background of Judgment

The case arises from a suo motu writ petition addressing systemic legal concerns about the protection of minors under the POCSO Act and the adequacy of judicial reasoning in cases involving adolescent victims of sexual assault. The appellant challenged the acquittal granted by the Calcutta High Court, which had quashed the conviction of a 25-year-old for aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a 14-year-old minor. The High Court relied on the alleged “non-exploitative consensual nature” of the relationship.

This judgment engages with critical questions of law, including:

1. Whether consensual relationships involving minors can be exempt from statutory definitions of aggravated sexual offenses.
2. The obligations of the judiciary to assess evidence objectively while adhering to statutory mandates.
3. The State’s duty in providing care, protection, and rehabilitation to minor victims.

D) Facts of the Case

1. The accused, aged 25, induced a 14-year-old girl to leave her lawful guardianship in 2018. They lived together, and the victim later gave birth to a child.
2. The victim’s mother filed a police complaint, leading to the accused’s arrest in 2021. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 376(2)(n), 376(3), 363, and 366 of the IPC.
3. The High Court overturned the conviction, citing a consensual relationship and other extraneous factors, including the accused’s ongoing support for the victim and their child.
4. The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the judgment, noting its potential to undermine statutory safeguards for minors.

E) Legal Issues Raised

1. Whether sexual relationships involving minors can be deemed consensual for mitigating criminal liability under the POCSO Act.
2. Whether the High Court erred in equating statutory sexual assault with non-exploitative romantic relationships.
3. Whether the judiciary can exercise plenary powers to quash convictions for statutory sexual offenses based on alleged victim-accused settlements.
4. Whether the State fulfilled its statutory duties under the Juvenile Justice Act to provide care and protection to the minor victim.

F) Petitioner/Appellant’s Arguments

1. The petitioner argued that the High Court violated statutory mandates by considering “consent” from a minor under 18 as a mitigating factor.
2. They highlighted the irrelevance of “romantic relationships” under the POCSO Act and IPC, which criminalize penetrative sexual assault irrespective of consent.
3. The appellant emphasized that the victim was deprived of proper care, protection, and rehabilitation, violating the Juvenile Justice Act and Article 21.
4. They submitted that the High Court’s reasoning diluted legislative intent to safeguard minors from sexual exploitation.

G) Respondent’s Arguments

1. The defense argued that the accused and victim had a consensual relationship, mitigating the culpability under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.
2. They contended that the accused provided care for the victim and their child, and convicting him would harm their welfare.
3. The respondents relied on the victim’s statements supporting the accused, asserting that incarceration would negatively impact her family life.

H) Related Legal Provisions

• POCSO Act: Section 6, Section 19(6)
• IPC: Section 375, 376(2)(n), 376(3), 363, 366
• Juvenile Justice Act, 2015: Sections 27, 30, 39, and 46

I) Judgment

a. Ratio Decidendi

1. The Supreme Court held that penetrative sexual assault on minors constitutes aggravated sexual offenses under the POCSO Act, irrespective of consent.
2. The High Court erred in applying subjective notions like “non-exploitative romantic relationships,” which are irrelevant under statutory mandates.
3. Judicial discretion cannot override legislative safeguards meant for vulnerable minors.

b. Obiter Dicta

The Court emphasized that judgments must adhere strictly to statutory language and not reflect personal opinions or irrelevant sociological commentary.

c. Guidelines Issued

1. State governments must strictly implement Sections 19(6) and 39 of the Juvenile Justice Act for victim care and rehabilitation.
2. The judiciary must avoid extraneous reasoning, like assessing the societal implications of consensual relationships among adolescents, when adjudicating statutory offenses.

J) Conclusion and Comments

This judgment underscores the judiciary’s obligation to uphold statutory safeguards for minors while avoiding extrajudicial considerations. It also reaffirms the need for robust State mechanisms to support and rehabilitate minor victims of sexual offenses.

K) References

1. Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, [2012] 8 SCR 753.
2. Section 6, POCSO Act, 2012.
3. Section 376(2)(n), IPC.
4. Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
5. Article 21, Constitution of India.