The court made the observation while quashing the conviction of a man sentenced under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the SC/ST Act, noting that the relationship in question was consensual and involved an adult woman.
The observations came while the court was hearing an appeal filed by Chandresh, who had been convicted in March 2024 by a Special Judge (POCSO Act), Maharajganj, and sentenced to life imprisonment.
The prosecution had alleged that Chandresh lured the complainant’s minor daughter to Bengaluru on the pretext of marriage and established physical relations with her.
The high court, however, found that the victim was an adult at the time of the incident. It noted that the trial court had failed to properly consider the ossification test report, which assessed the woman’s age to be around 20 years.
A division bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Prashant Mishra said, “We find that this case is an example of increasing tendency of the youth living together without solemnisation of marriage under the influence of western ideas and the concept of live-in,” according to a report by The Indian Express.
The bench further noted, “After such relationships fail, FIR is lodged and the laws being in favour of women, the boys/men get convicted relying upon the laws which were made when the concept of live-in was nowhere in existence,” the IE report added.
The court also took into account the conduct of the victim, who admitted that she had voluntarily left her home and travelled with the appellant by public transport to Gorakhpur and then to Bengaluru.
The bench, noted that despite travelling in government buses and trains, the woman did not raise any objection. She lived with the appellant for about six months in a residential area in Bengaluru and had consensual physical relations with him.
She contacted her family only after the appellant dropped her back at Shikarpur Crossing on August 6, 2021, the court onserved.
The bench also pointed out that school records produced by the prosecution were not proved in accordance with the Juvenile Justice Rules. Discrepancies were also noted in the age stated by the victim’s mother, who mentioned her daughter’s age as 18-and-a-half years in the FIR.
