Mumbai: A special POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act) court recently acquitted a 20-year-old for impregnating his minor girlfriend, holding that the relationship was consensual. The court rejected the prosecution’s case that sexual relations with a minor girl could not be considered consensual.
According to the prosecution, the accused was a college student in 2018, when he came in contact with the minor girl, also a junior college student, studying in standard 12 in Ghatkopar. The girl claimed that the accused used to follow her and they soon became friends later, the friendship blossomed into an affair.
The girl claimed that between January 10, and January 15, 2018, the accused called her to various places under various pretexts, like to purchase project books at a mall in Kurla, and during this period, established a sexual relationship with her several times.
She said, thereafter, they had differences and fought over some issues and resultantly she even deleted his number and began focusing on her board exams. However, in March, she realised that she was pregnant and during her hospitalisation for delivery, the family lodged a complaint against the accused and the police registered an FIR.
The police recorded the statement of the survivor, and also took tissue samples of the newborn child for DNA fingerprinting. The prosecution relied on the DNA reports which confirmed that the survivor and the accused were biological parents of the child.
The defence, however, argued that the places where the two were said to have met were crowded places and the girl failed to raise alarm, clearly hinting that the relationship was consensual. Also, the defence claimed that nowhere, she alleged that the accused forced him upon her and that the victim was not even keen on giving blood samples for DNA sampling.
The special court accepted the defence argument that the relationship was consensual and that the FIR was registered belatedly.
“The statement of PW2 (survivor) recorded by the magistrate shows that she was having consensual relations with the accused, and she had no grievance against him. Though there is DNA report which shows that the survivor and accused are concluded to be biological parents of baby, considering the consensual sex between the accused and victim, it cannot be said that accused had committed any offence.”
Referring to the evidence of the survivor’s mother, the court noted, “mother of survivor admitted in cross-examination that she did not immediately lodge a report in the police station when she came to know that her daughter was five to six months pregnant. She further admitted that they arranged medical treatment for her till seven to eight months of pregnancy, and at that time, she did not lodge any report in the police station. She could not assign any reason as to why she did not lodge any report in the police station.” The court also said that there was no explanation for the delay in lodging the case.
