“Can’t Dismiss POCSO Cases In Consensual Minor Relationships Until Centre Clarifies”
Thanks for studying this publish, do not forget to subscribe!
The Bombay Excessive Courtroom stated it can not dismiss POCSO circumstances involving consensual relationships with minors till the Central authorities makes its stand clear. The courtroom emphasised that such circumstances want cautious authorized scrutiny, not blanket dismissal.
The Bombay Excessive Courtroom in Aurangabad acknowledged that it will not be applicable to dismiss circumstances underneath the Safety of Kids from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) involving consensual relationships with minors till the Central authorities clarifies its place on the decriminalization of such relationships.
A Bench comprising Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay Deshmukh made this remark whereas listening to a case in opposition to a 27-year-old man accused of sexually assaulting a 17-year-old lady.
The accused argued that their relationship was consensual.
Also Read: Thane Rickshaw Driver Acquitted in POCSO Case Over Schoolgirl Modesty Allegation
The courtroom remarked,
“If the Courts begin accepting {that a} pretty main boy of age 25 years on-wards takes such step of taking away the lady who’s a minor after which now comes with the defence of adolescent love, then it is not going to be good signal from the authorized viewpoint, as a result of specific acts are legislated with sure goals and objects. Now except the issues are clarified by the Central Authorities upon instructions of the Hon’ble Supreme Courtroom, we should always not contemplate such circumstances (we’re carving out these circumstances whereby each the events are adolescent and harmless).”
This statement was made in mild of a latest Supreme Courtroom order within the case ‘Re Proper to Privateness of Adolescents,’ which expressed concern concerning the criminalization of consensual adolescent relationships underneath the POCSO Act.
On Might 23, the Supreme Courtroom had urged the Central authorities to ponder decriminalizing consensual romantic relationships amongst youngsters and to discover implementing a nationwide intercourse training coverage based mostly on suggestions from the Amicus Curiae.
The Excessive Courtroom famous the shortage of response from the Central authorities and acknowledged it will await clarification earlier than making any exceptions.
On this specific case, a police report was filed in January after hospital officers reported {that a} minor lady had given start. The lady, who was 17 years and 6 months previous on the time, acknowledged that she had a romantic relationship with the person, and so they had eloped to marry at a temple in 2023 with out parental consent. After dwelling collectively, she grew to become pregnant and returned dwelling to ship the child.
The person sought to quash the police case in opposition to him, asserting that the lady had willingly entered the connection. The lady supported this declare in a written assertion, expressing that pursuing the case would negatively have an effect on her and her daughter’s future.
Nonetheless, the Excessive Courtroom declined to dismiss the case, citing the age distinction.
The Courtroom acknowledged,
“The actual fact which can’t be brushed apart is that the applicant was round 26 years of age on the time of alleged marriage. Not less than he should have understood that he ought to wait until the lady attains 18 years of age. Then despite having data that the lady is minor, when he takes her away from the authorized custody of her mother and father, from that time itself he commits the offence,”
It additionally raised broader points regarding baby marriage and teenage being pregnant, referencing an area information report that indicated 453 pregnant minor women have been concerned in baby marriages in Aurangabad district in 2024.
Advocate Dhananjay M Shinde represented the accused, whereas Further Public Prosecutor VK Kotecha appeared for the State, and Advocate Narayan Y Chavan represented the sufferer.
Case Title: Aakash Nanasaheb Waghmare v State of Maharashtra
Learn Attachment
