Maruthupandi Vs State: Minor Boy Enters Into A Consensual Relationship With A Minor Girl, Can Be Punished Under POCSO Act

CRUX: Maruthupandi v. State (22nd March, 2021)-The issue that the present case deals with is whether a minor boy, who enters into a consensual relationship with a minor girl, can be punished for offences under the POCSO Act.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16th March, 2021.

JUDGE: P. Velmurugan (Madras High Court).

PARTIES

• Maruthupandi (Appellant)
• The State (Respondent)

SUMMARY: The present case deals with the issue of whether a minor boy, who enters into a consensual relationship with a minor girl, can be punished for offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.

OVERVIEW

1. The present petition before the Supreme Court was filed in response to a judgment given by the Madras High Court which held that once a victim girl gives a complaint about an offence under the POCSO Act, and the case is registered, it becomes an offence against State and the subsequent compromise won't take away the offence.
2. A case was registered against the appellant under the provisions of Sec. 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act, and after trial, the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years by the trial court. It is important to note that the victim and the accused were minors at the time of commission of the offence.
3. The appellant had filed an appeal in the Madras High Court under the provisions of Sec. 482 and 391, which deal with inherent powers of the High Court and the appellate court’s power to take further evidence. The court stated that any offence committed under the POCSO Act was not a compoundable offence.
4. The High Court, on reviewing of the petition filed by the appellant, dismissed the same.
5. The appellant has now approached the Supreme Court challenging the judgment of the High Court.
6. The matter is now before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The following issues were to be analyzed:

• Whether a minor boy, who enters into a consensual relationship with a minor girl, can be punished for offences under the POCSO Act.
• Whether offences under POCSO Act is a compoundable offence.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

• Sec. 5 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act: Aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
• Sec. 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act: Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
• Sec. 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure: Saving of inherent powers of High Court.
• Sec. 391 of Code of Criminal Procedure: Appellate Court may take further evidence or direct it to be taken.
• Sec. 417 of the Indian Penal Code: Punishment for cheating.
• Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code: Punishment for rape.
• Sec. 312 of the Indian Penal Code: Causing miscarriage.

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT

1. The appeal had been filed against the impugned judgment of the High Court. The counsel for the appellant challenged the order of the High Court refusing permission to compound the offences against the appellant under the POCSO Act.
2. During these proceedings, an application was moved for taking of additional evidence of the victim to the effect that both of them had been living together for the past four years and that their relationship was consensual. The application was ultimately dismissed.
3. The counsel for the appellant made reference to the judgment given by a co-ordinate bench in the case of Vijaylakshmi v. The State (Crl.O.P.No.232 of 2021) to support his arguments.
4. In the aforementioned case, the High Court held that punishing a minor boy who enters into a relationship with a minor girl was never the objective of the POCSO Act. Therefore, taking reference to the view of the court here, the appellant in the present case contended that there was no sexual assault or violence involved.
5. The court, in the aforementioned judgment, held that an adolescent boy and girl who are in the grips of their hormones and biological changes and whose decision-making ability is yet to fully develop, should essentially receive the support and guidance of their parents and the society at large.
6. The counsel for the appellant also referred to the judgment given in the case of S. Kasi v. State (CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 452 OF 2020), which held that a coordinate bench cannot take a contrary view and in event there was any doubt, a coordinate bench only can refer the matter for consideration by a larger bench. The judicial discipline ordains so.
7. The counsel for the appellant had contended that before taking a contrary view to decisions of two coordinate benches on the same point of law, the single judge bench should have borne in mind the settled principles of consistency and judicial discipline.

CONCLUSION

The issue that the present case deals with is whether a minor boy, who enters into a consensual relationship with a minor girl, can be punished for offences under the POCSO Act.

The appellant in the present case approached the Supreme Court against the order of the High Court refusing to compound the offences alleged against him. “Compounding of an offence” means that a person, who is accused of committing a crime, files an application before the compounding authority accepting that he had committed the offence and that the same should be condoned. It is more or less like reaching an agreement with the victim by the accused and both agree to have the charges dropped against the accused. The High Court, in the present case, refused to allow the appellant to compound the offences charged against him, as it stated that offences under the provisions of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) were not compoundable offences.

The High Court, in its impugned judgment, held that even assuming that the victim girl had fallen in love with the appellant and admitted that they are living for four years, even on the date of commission of the offence, provisions of the POCSO Act attract. However, in the case of Sabari v. Inspector of Police, the court held that more liberal provisions can be introduced in the Act itself in order to distinguish the cases of teen age relationship after 16 years, from the cases of sexual assault on children below 16 years.

The matter, in the instant case, has been posted for further hearing.

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement