Purpose Of POCSO Act Is To Treat Minors As A Class By Itself So That An Attempt To Sexual Assault Or Molest Minors Entails Graver Consequences: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has observed that the purpose of the POCSO Act is to treat minors as a separate class by itself so that an attempt to sexually assault or molest or abuse the minor entails graver and stricter consequences.

Justice Subramonium Prasad made the observation while denying bail to two men in a case registered under sec. 376, 376D, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code read with sec. 6 of the POCSO Act.

The facts of the case were that the complainant, a 17 year old girl studying in 9th Standard, met accused Suraj in 5th Standard through another petitioner Lal Mohammad and his sister-in- law. It was alleged that that they developed a friendship and after 2 to 3 months into the friendship, Suraj took her to a forest after school hours and raped her.

It was further alleged that the primary accused also took explicit videos of the prosecutrix and compelled her to come to the forest again where after raping her, his friends arrived at the spot. 

According to the complaint, it was stated that the boys started blackmailed the prosecutrix by showing her explicit videos and threatened to circulate and upload them on the internet if she did not have intercourse with all of them.

In March 2018, the prosecutrix missed her menstrual cycle after which she informed her mother of the events of collective exploitation. Subsequently, the FIR was lodged.

The permission was sought for the medical termination of her pregnancy which was thereafter done in 2018 after obtaining court orders.

During investigation, it was found that the age of the prosecutrix at the time of registering the FIR was 17 years. Chargesheet was then filed in September 2018 and charges were framed.

It was thus argued on behalf of the petitioners that since two co accused were already released on bail, bail should be granted on the ground of parity.

On the other hand, the prosecution argued that the petitioners were accused of a heinous offence whereby the prosecutrix was blackmailed for a prolonged and continuous period of time and then compelled to have intercourse with the accused persons.

It was also argued that the framing of charges or the discharge of one of the co-accused being the sister-in-law of one of the petitioners had no consequence as the punishment under sec. 6 of the POCSO Act is life imprisonment extending upto the natural life of the accused, therefore, bail ought not be granted in the matter.

"The purpose of the POCSO Act is to treat minors as a class by itself and to treat them separately so that an attempt to sexual assault or harass or molest or abuse the minor entails graver and stricter consequences. The ultimate purpose of this law is the paramount well-being of the child and to protect minors from flagrant violence inflicted on them," the Court observed.

Observing that the bail could not be granted even on the ground of parity, the Court said:

"Rape is an offence which not only violates the physical body of the survivor, but is also capable of inflicting trauma on the mental psyche which can end up persisting for years. Keeping in mind this nature of the offence, this Court inhabits a duty to consider such matters with utmost case."

The Court took note of the fact that the prosecutrix was consistently traumatised since she was 13 years of age till she attained 16 years of age and also became pregnant.

"Charges have been framed against all the accused, including the petitioners herein, for offences under Sections 376(2), 376(D), 506(ii) read with Section 34 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Punishment under Section 6 of the POCSO Act is imprisonment for a minimum period of 20 years which can extend up to life, which means the remainder life of the accused. The petitioners are, therefore, accused of a very serious offence and the fact that they can threaten the prosecutrix cannot be ruled out," the Court said.

The Court denied bail to the two men observing that bail may not be granted till the examination of prosecutrix.

However, considering the fact that the petitioners were youngsters, the Trial Court was requested to expedite the trial and examine the prosecutrix within a period of six months.

Title: SURAJ v. STATE

Click Here To Read Order