New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has reiterated that in cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, the concept of consent has no legal importance if the victim is a minor.
The court made this statement when denying the accused's bail petition in a case involving a 16-year-old girl. When rejecting bail to one Mohd. Rafayat Ali, Justice Sanjeev Narula underlined that the victim's age is the deciding element in such circumstances.
“The plea of a consensual relationship is legally immaterial. If the victim is below 18 years of age, the law presumes she is incapable of giving valid consent,” the court stated, TNIE reported.
The case against Ali was filed last year in response to a complaint from the girl's mother. The victim said that Ali, a married guy with children, befriended her and engaged in physical relations under the guise of marriage.
When she became pregnant, he allegedly administered medication that restored her menstrual cycle but caused significant abdominal pain. Her parents took her to the hospital for an ultrasound, which revealed her pregnancy.
During discussions with the Child Welfare Committee, the girl insisted that the connection was consensual. However, Ali claimed that there was a mistake in her age and that she was 18 at the time of the incident.
However, the court relied on school records, which stated her birth date as August 3, 2008, indicating that she was a minor at the time of the alleged incident.
It said that unless there was tangible evidence to disprove these documents, the prosecutrix's oral declarations could not outweigh documentary proof during the bail hearing.
“The accused’s claim that the prosecutrix was an adult remains unsubstantiated and can only be tested during trial,” the court observed. It also stated that cross-examinations had not undermined the prosecution's reliance on school documents.
Given the nature of the offence, the substantial age difference between the accused and the victim, and the continuing trial with crucial witnesses yet to testify, the court determined that granting bail could result in witness tampering.
“Given the gravity of the case and the potential for influencing witnesses, the court is not inclined to grant bail,” the court further said.