Introduction:

The Madras High Court in Mahesh v. State (2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 103) delivered a significant judgment addressing the complexities that arise when consensual adolescent relationships fall within the ambit of stringent statutory provisions such as the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The case involved an appeal filed by Mahesh challenging the judgment of the Special Court for POCSO Cases at Kanyakumari @ Nagercoil, which had convicted him under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The High Court was called upon to examine whether the prosecution had successfully proved the essential ingredients of the offences alleged, particularly the age of the victim and the nature of the relationship between the parties. Justice N. Mala, while hearing the appeal, carefully analysed the evidence and circumstances surrounding the case and ultimately concluded that the conviction could not be sustained. The court observed that the facts reflected a consensual adolescent relationship that later turned contentious due to parental intervention. Importantly, the court also expressed concern over the increasing tendency to invoke stringent provisions of the POCSO Act in cases involving teenage relationships, where both individuals may be minors and emotionally involved with each other. The court emphasized that such cases often result in severe consequences for young boys, who end up facing criminal prosecution and incarceration. In addition to setting aside the conviction, the court highlighted the need for greater awareness about the provisions and implications of the POCSO Act and directed the State authorities to implement measures under Section 43 of the Act to educate the public, children, and parents about its stringent provisions.

Arguments on Behalf of the Appellant:

On behalf of the appellant, counsel Mr. K. Karnan strongly challenged the findings of the trial court and argued that the conviction was legally unsustainable. It was submitted that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential elements required to prove the offences under both the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act. The counsel contended that the relationship between the appellant and the alleged victim was consensual in nature and that the victim had voluntarily accompanied the appellant. According to the defence, the appellant and the girl were romantically involved and had developed a relationship over time. The counsel pointed out that the victim herself had initially not made any allegations against the appellant in her earlier statements to the authorities. This, according to the defence, clearly demonstrated that there was no element of coercion, inducement, or force involved in the relationship. The defence further explained the factual circumstances leading to the incident. It was argued that the victim had informed the appellant that her parents were arranging her marriage to another person against her wishes. Distressed by the situation, the appellant suggested that she leave her home, after which she voluntarily accompanied him. The couple subsequently went to the residence of one of the appellant’s relatives, where they allegedly married and lived together for a short period. The counsel emphasized that the girl’s decision to accompany the appellant was entirely voluntary and independent, and therefore the allegation of kidnapping under Section 366 IPC was not made out. Another significant aspect raised by the defence concerned the credibility and consistency of the victim’s testimony. The counsel argued that the victim’s statements recorded during the investigation and trial contained inconsistencies, and therefore the trial court ought to have exercised greater caution before relying on them to convict the appellant. It was further submitted that the prosecution had not produced reliable evidence to conclusively prove the age of the victim, which was a foundational requirement for invoking the provisions of the POCSO Act. The defence pointed out that the prosecution relied on xerox copies of the birth certificate and transfer certificate to establish the victim’s age. However, the originals of these documents were admittedly available. Despite this, the trial court accepted the xerox copies without any explanation as to why the original documents were not produced. According to the defence, such reliance on secondary evidence was legally impermissible and constituted a serious procedural error. The counsel argued that in the absence of legally admissible evidence establishing that the victim was below 18 years of age at the time of the alleged incident, the prosecution case under the POCSO Act could not stand. On these grounds, the defence requested the High Court to set aside the conviction and acquit the appellant.

Arguments on Behalf of the Prosecution:

Opposing the appeal, the Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. A. Thiruvadikumar, defended the judgment of the trial court and argued that the conviction was justified based on the evidence presented during the trial. The prosecution maintained that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident and that the appellant had taken her away from her lawful guardianship with the intention of marrying her and engaging in sexual relations. According to the prosecution’s case, the victim was only sixteen years old when the incident occurred. The prosecution contended that the appellant, who was known to the victim’s family as a friend of her brother, gradually developed a relationship with the girl and later expressed his intention to marry her. It was argued that the appellant took advantage of the victim’s vulnerable position when she informed him that her parents were planning to marry her off against her will. The prosecution alleged that the appellant persuaded the girl to leave her home and subsequently took her to the residence of his relative, where they stayed together. During this period, the prosecution claimed that the appellant committed sexual assault upon the victim repeatedly between March 4, 2018 and April 5, 2018. The prosecution further explained that the incident came to light when the District Child Protection Officer received an anonymous phone call regarding the presence of the couple at the relative’s residence. Acting on the information, the officer visited the location and took both the appellant and the girl into custody. The prosecution argued that the victim’s minority was sufficient to attract the provisions of the POCSO Act, as consent is legally irrelevant when the victim is below the age of eighteen years. The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial court had properly appreciated the evidence and had rightly concluded that the appellant had committed offences punishable under Section 366 IPC and Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The prosecution also contended that the documentary evidence produced during the trial was sufficient to establish the victim’s age and that the trial court had correctly relied upon the available records to reach its conclusion. Accordingly, the prosecution urged the High Court to dismiss the appeal and uphold the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.

Court’s Judgment:

After carefully considering the arguments presented by both sides and examining the evidence on record, the Madras High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction imposed by the trial court. Justice N. Mala undertook a detailed analysis of the evidence and the circumstances surrounding the case. At the outset, the court observed that the case appeared to involve a consensual adolescent relationship that had later turned contentious due to parental disapproval. The court noted that such situations were increasingly being brought before courts, where relationships between teenagers were later criminalized under the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act. Justice Mala remarked that in many such cases, it was often the young boy who ultimately suffered the consequences. The court observed that when parental objections arise, the girl may be compelled to distance herself from the relationship or marry another person, and criminal proceedings are then initiated against the boy under the POCSO Act. Such prosecutions, the court noted, frequently result in the prolonged incarceration of young individuals whose actions may have stemmed from emotional immaturity rather than criminal intent. Turning to the evidentiary aspects of the case, the court focused on the issue of the victim’s age, which was a critical factor in determining whether the provisions of the POCSO Act could be applied. The court observed that the prosecution had relied on xerox copies of the birth certificate and transfer certificate to establish that the victim was a minor at the relevant time. However, during the proceedings, it emerged that the original documents were available but had not been produced before the trial court. The High Court emphasized that under the rules of evidence, secondary evidence such as xerox copies cannot be admitted unless a proper explanation is provided for the non-production of the original documents. In the absence of such an explanation, the trial court ought not to have accepted the xerox copies as evidence. Justice Mala held that the trial court had committed a serious error by failing to examine the admissibility of these documents and by placing heavy reliance on them to determine the victim’s age. The court described this lapse as a “fatal error” that undermined the entire prosecution case. Since the age of the victim was a foundational fact necessary to establish the offences under the POCSO Act, the failure to prove it through legally admissible evidence meant that the conviction could not be sustained. The High Court therefore concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged incident. In light of this finding, the court held that the conviction under both Section 366 IPC and the provisions of the POCSO Act could not be maintained. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the appellant was acquitted of all charges. In addition to addressing the legal issues in the case, the court also made broader observations regarding the implementation of the POCSO Act. Justice Mala pointed out that Section 43 of the Act mandates the State to undertake measures to spread awareness about the provisions of the law and its implications. The court observed that a lack of awareness about the stringent nature of the POCSO Act was one of the reasons why it was sometimes misused in cases involving adolescent relationships. The judge emphasized that if the provisions of Section 43 were implemented in their true spirit, the misuse of the law could be significantly reduced. The court therefore directed the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu to take immediate steps to ensure compliance with Section 43 of the POCSO Act. This included organizing awareness programs and educational camps in both government and private schools and colleges to inform students, parents, and the general public about the provisions of the Act and the serious legal consequences associated with its violation. Through these directions, the High Court sought to promote a better understanding of the law and prevent situations where young individuals unknowingly expose themselves to severe criminal liability.