'Both Victim & Accused Had Lust & Infatuation': Meghalaya HC Upholds POCSO Conviction, Says Male Partner Made Scapegoat

Noting that "there is no provision under the POCSO Act to pardon a person who has committed the offence out of ignorance", a bench of Chief Justice S. Vaidyanathan and Justice W. Diengdoh observed that it was a case involving a love affair, and unfortunately, the accused had to undergo imprisonment for the mistakes committed by the two.

“…It is no doubt true that the offence under POCSO Act, 2012 has been made out to impose punishment on the accused/appellant. While the so-called victim girl is leading a happy life, the accused / appellant has been undergoing incarceration and there is no provision under the Act to pardon a person, who has committed the offence out of ignorance. At the young age both had lust and infatuation,” the Court said.

The division bench, however, reduced the quantum of punishment awarded to the accused (from life imprisonment to Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and Rs. 10K fine).

Essentially, it was the case of the prosecution that the accused had kidnapped the victim child (14-year-old) to Tripura and had sexual intercourse, attracting the provisions of Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

The Special Judge (POCSO), District and Sessions Court, Shillong, convicted him under Section 4 of the POCSO Act and Section 366A of the IPC and sentenced him to Life Imprisonment.

Challenging his conviction, he moved the High Court wherein his counsel argued that it was a case of a love affair and the victim girl, of her own volition, had left the house and married the accused, which is evident from Section 161 CrPC statements of the victim girl.

On the other hand, the counsel for the State contended that both the victim girl and the accused loved each other and left the home. After the marriage, they had sexual intercourse, which culminated in the registration of FIR under the POCSO Act, 2012.

Taking into account the argument advanced by both parties, the Court noted that from the evidence of the victim girl (P.W.8), there was no material to infer that the accused had forcibly carried her away, as in her Section 161 CrPC statement, she admitted that she had voluntarily accompanied the accused.

However, the Court further that as per the medical evidence, since she was 13 years and above at the time of the incident, her consent would be of no relevance in this case but can at the most, be considered as a mitigating factor, while deciding the question of sentence.

The Court also took note of the inconsistencies in the depositions of the victim girl given before the Court while examining her in chief and cross-examination.

The Court also observed that it was purely a case of love affairs as nowhere, the victim girl deposed that it was the accused, who forcibly took her to Tripura and committed sexual assault.

“On one hand, she had stated that there was a forcible physical relationship, on the other hand, she had deposed that there was no torture meted out at the hands of the accused and she got into the van on her own at the request of the accused without any compulsion. Though this Court may infer that there is a possibility of tutoring her at every stage…” the Court added as it emphasised there is no other option for the Court, but to decide the case based on the testimony of the victim girl.

The Court also referred to the report of the medical examination conducted on the victim girl which clearly showed that her hymen was torn.

Thus, in all probabilities, the Court noted that all the legal parameters were against the accused, and the prosecution had proved the charges against the appellant beyond doubt.

Therefore, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the Court opined that the interests of justice would be served if the life imprisonment imposed under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012, awarded to the appellant, is reduced to 10 years.

Case citation: