In a recent judgement, the Meghalaya High Court Invalidates POCSO FIR, Affirms Minor’s Capacity for Conscious Decision in Sexual Assault Case
Meghalaya High Court
In a significant development, the Meghalaya High Court has dismissed an FIR filed under sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act, which pertained to the alleged penetrative sexual assault on a minor. The court asserted that a 16-year-old is capable of making a conscious decision regarding sexual intercourse.
During the proceedings, Justice W. Diengdoh, presiding over the bench, noted that considering the physical and mental development of an adolescent around the age of 16, it is reasonable to believe that they can make conscious decisions about their well-being concerning engaging in sexual acts.
The case revolved around a plea seeking the quashing of the FIR, contending that the incident did not amount to sexual assault but rather constituted a consensual act, as the petitioner and the alleged victim were in a romantic relationship.
According to the petitioner’s version, they had become acquainted while working in various households. According to the allegations, they reportedly visited the residence of the petitioner’s uncle, where the sexual intercourse occurred. The next day, the minor girl’s mother lodged a First Information Report (FIR) against the petitioner, invoking Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act 2012.
After scrutiny of the petitioner’s arguments and considering relevant legal precedents, the Court concluded that the survivor’s statement, given under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and reiterated during her court testimony, affirmed her status as the petitioner’s girlfriend.
Moreover, she explicitly stated that the sexual intercourse occurred with her consent and without the use of force. Despite her being a minor, approximately 16 years of age, the Court found the survivor’s statement supportive of the petitioner’s position.
Citing the precedent set by the Madras High Court in the case of Vijayalakshmi and Another v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station (2021), the Court concluded that taking into account the physical and mental development of individuals within the survivor’s age bracket, it is justifiable to assume their capability to make informed decisions regarding engaging in sexual intercourse.
A Biased PerspectiveÂ
Societal prejudices often perpetuate the notion that women are victims and men are solely perpetrators, leading to the erosion of the compassionate side of men. This biased perspective becomes particularly evident in cases involving consensual sexual relationships among minors.
 The enactment of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act in 2012 inadvertently contributed to parents retaliating against pre-marital sex by raising the age of consent for females. Consequently, even if a male adolescent engages in consensual sexual activity with a minor partner, he can be charged with child sexual abuse due to the law’s invalidation of a minor’s consent.
The inherent injustice faced by adolescents in such cases stems from regressive social norms and patriarchal control exerted over matters of sexuality and marriage. These norms restrict adolescents’ agency and deny them the freedom to make informed choices about their bodies and relationships. The rigid gender stereotypes perpetuated by society further exacerbate this problem, overshadowing the potential for mutual respect and equality within relationships.
To address this issue, it is crucial to challenge these prevailing biases, promote comprehensive sex education, and encourage open discussions on consent and healthy relationships. By fostering an environment that values individual autonomy and respects the rights of all genders, we can strive towards dismantling regressive norms and establishing a more equitable society for adolescents.
