Introduction:
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in RK v. State of Madhya Pradesh [CRA-3578-2024], dealt with a deeply troubling case where a man had been convicted under the stringent provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, despite clear medical and factual evidence indicating that the victim was a major and a consenting adult. A Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Ramkumar Choubey not only set aside the conviction but also took the extraordinary step of issuing show cause notices to the concerned Special Judge and the Public Prosecutor for what it described as a serious miscarriage of justice. The Court observed that the accused had remained behind bars for over three years due to an apparent failure of the trial court to consider crucial evidence relating to the age and consent of the victim, which went to the very root of the applicability of the POCSO Act. The case arose from a complaint lodged by the mother of the girl alleging that her daughter had gone missing on January 31, 2022. The victim was later recovered on April 23, 2022, and her statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, followed by a medical examination. Despite material suggesting that the victim was above 18 years of age and that the relationship was consensual, the Special Judge convicted the accused for aggravated sexual assault under Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act. The High Court, while allowing the appeal, not only corrected the legal error but also strongly criticized the manner in which the trial had been conducted, observing that such lapses shake public confidence in the criminal justice system, especially when liberty of an individual is at stake.
Arguments:
On behalf of the appellant–accused, learned counsel argued that the conviction under the POCSO Act was fundamentally illegal because the victim was not a minor at the time of the alleged incident. It was contended that during trial, the doctor who examined the victim had clearly recommended radiological examination to determine age, and pursuant to this, an X-ray was conducted which assessed the victim’s age as more than 18 years. The defence pointed out that this X-ray report formed part of the prosecution record itself, yet neither the Public Prosecutor exhibited the document nor did the trial court consider it while evaluating the applicability of POCSO provisions. It was argued that once the medical opinion established that the victim was a major, the very foundation of charges under the POCSO Act collapsed, as the statute applies strictly to children below the age of 18 years.
The defence further submitted that the trial court failed to exercise its powers under Section 311 of the CrPC, which empowers courts to summon or recall any witness if such examination appears essential to the just decision of the case. It was argued that when a crucial document regarding age existed, the court was duty-bound to clarify and examine the issue rather than ignore it. Counsel also highlighted the victim’s own testimony, where she admitted that she knew the accused, had voluntarily accompanied him, and that both of them had performed a marriage ceremony at a temple and lived together for about two months, during which they had physical relations. These facts, according to the defence, clearly indicated a consensual relationship between two adults, which cannot attract criminal liability under either POCSO or kidnapping provisions. The defence relied on settled legal principles that consent of a major woman negates the offence of kidnapping under Section 366 IPC when she voluntarily accompanies the accused.
The defence also relied upon the earlier decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Lallusingh S/o Jagdishsingh Samgar v. State of M.P., 1996 MPLJ 452, wherein it was held that when a document is available on record, the accused can take benefit of it even if it is not formally proved by the defence, especially when such document originates from the prosecution itself. On this basis, it was argued that the accused was entitled to benefit of the X-ray report determining age, irrespective of procedural lapses in formally exhibiting the document.
On behalf of the State, the Public Prosecutor defended the conviction and argued that the trial court had relied upon the complaint of the victim’s mother and the initial missing report, which suggested that the girl was taken away without consent. It was contended that in cases involving allegations of sexual offences, the courts must adopt a cautious approach and protect the interests of victims. However, when confronted with the medical evidence relating to age and the victim’s own testimony about consent and marriage, the State was unable to effectively justify why such material was ignored by the trial court. The High Court noted that the prosecution failed to explain why the age determination report was neither exhibited nor argued before the trial court and why the victim’s testimony pointing to consensual relationship was not properly appreciated. The arguments of the State, therefore, did not persuade the Court to sustain the conviction in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence.
Court’s Judgment:
After a detailed examination of the record, the Division Bench categorically held that the trial court had committed a grave and fundamental error by convicting the accused under the POCSO Act despite evidence clearly indicating that the victim was above 18 years of age. The Court observed that the X-ray report, which was part of the prosecution evidence, conclusively suggested that the victim was a major, and once this fact was established, the provisions of the POCSO Act could not have been invoked. The Bench emphasized that the only legally relevant question thereafter was whether the relationship between the accused and the victim was consensual.
The Court carefully analyzed the testimony of the victim and noted that she had stated in her examination-in-chief that she knew the accused, that they had performed a marriage ceremony at a temple, that they had stayed together for two months, and that during this period they had a physical relationship. The Court held that these facts clearly established a consensual relationship between two adults, which does not constitute any offence under criminal law. The Bench reiterated that criminal law cannot be used to punish consensual relationships between adults merely because families disapprove of such relationships.
The Court further observed that the trial court failed to exercise judicial responsibility by ignoring material documents and not invoking Section 311 of the CrPC to clarify crucial issues relating to age. Relying on the precedent in Lallusingh, the Court held that when documents are available on record, the accused is entitled to rely upon them even if they are not formally proved, especially when such documents originate from the prosecution itself. The Bench held that the trial court’s failure to consider this settled legal position amounted to serious judicial negligence.
In strong and unusual language, the Court observed that the accused had been kept in custody for more than three years due to what it termed as “intellectual dishonesty” on the part of the Special Judge. The Bench held that overlooking the fact that the victim was a consenting adult and still convicting the accused under POCSO amounted to doing grave injustice and reflected a disturbing lack of application of mind. Consequently, the Court not only allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence but also directed the Registry to issue show cause notices to the concerned Special Judge and the Public Prosecutor, calling upon them to explain how such a serious lapse occurred. The Court made it clear that judicial officers and prosecutors have a constitutional duty to ensure fair trial and protection of personal liberty, and failure to discharge this duty cannot be taken lightly. The judgment thus stands as a strong reminder that misuse or careless application of stringent laws like POCSO can lead to catastrophic consequences for innocent individuals and that courts must exercise heightened vigilance while dealing with cases involving personal liberty.