Punishing teens in love not aim of Pocso, says Madras HC – Times of India

CHENNAI: Punishing an adolescent boy who enters into a relationship with a minor girl by treating him as an offender was never the objective of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act, observed the Madras high court. It also recommended to the legislature to swiftly bring necessary amendments to the act.
The court made the observations while quashing criminal proceedings pending before a magistrate court against an auto driver who was booked under the Pocso Act for marrying a minor girl. The case was filed in 2018, when both the boy and the girl were a few days short of 18.
The girl’s family moved the HC to quash the criminal proceedings, saying the family wanted to get the girl married and that the criminal proceedings caused them mental agony.
On her part, the girl also deposed before the court through video-conferencing and said she was in a relationship with the boy.
The prosecution argued that the court has to consider whether an offence of this nature could be quashed on the ground of compromise between the parties.
Justice N Anand Venkatesh, after perusing the submissions, noted that there can be no second thought as to the seriousness of offences under the Pocso Act and the object it seeks to achieve. “However, it is imperative for the court to draw a thin line that demarcates the nature of acts that should not be made to fall within the scope of the act, for such is the severity of sentences provided under the act, if acted upon hastily, it could lead to irreparable damage to the livelihood of youth whose actions would have only been innocuous.” The judge said the law meant to protect and render justice to victims of child abuse can become a tool in the hands of certain sections of the society.
The court also pointed out that it is crucial to be aware of the science and psychology of adolescence and young adulthood and cited various studies and to the definition by the UN, which categorises adolescence as 10-19 years of age and young people as 10-24 years in the Southeast Asia region.
“This court is not turning a blind eye to cases where victims or survivors may, under the effect of trauma, convince themselves that the element of consent was present nor is the court justifying the genuineness of the accused in every case where the accused and minor girl were in a relationship. That will depend on facts and circumstances of each and every case,” Justice Anand Venkatesh said.