Minor Cannot Consent To Sexual Relations Even If In Love Relationship: Calcutta High Court Upholds Life Sentence In POCSO Case

The Calcutta High Court has upheld the life imprisonment of a man convicted of repeatedly sexually assaulting a girl aged between 12 and 14 years. 

The Court held that the victim's affection or “love affair” with the accused could not dilute the statutory protection granted to children or legitimise sexual acts committed against her.

The Division Bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta dismissed the appeal filed by Santosh Srivastava @ Manu Srivastava, affirming his conviction under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. 

The Court found overwhelming oral and scientific evidence— including a DNA report indicating that the accused “cannot be excluded” as the biological father of the child born to the victim—clearly establishing repeated acts of aggravated penetrative sexual assault.

According to the prosecution, the appellant allegedly lured the minor into a relationship beginning in 2014 and first had sexual intercourse with her in November 2016, when the girl was about 14 years old. He continued to exploit her on a promise of marriage, despite her resistance. The matter came to light only after the minor became pregnant in early 2017. When confronted, the accused and his family denied responsibility, prompting the filing of an FIR at Narkeldanga Police Station.

Rejecting the defence argument that the victim's age had not been properly proved, the Court held that her birth certificate was duly seized and exhibited, and the defence never raised a genuine dispute during the trial. The Bench referred to Section 34 of the POCSO Act and Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act, reiterating that age determination becomes necessary only when a real controversy exists.

The Court also dismissed the contention that the DNA findings were inconclusive. On the contrary, it observed that a conclusion stating the accused “cannot be excluded” as the biological father strongly supported the prosecution and aligned with the victim's consistent and unshaken testimony. Citing Supreme Court precedent, the Bench emphasised that the testimony of a minor rape victim—if credible—requires no further corroboration.

On the issue of delay in lodging the FIR, the Court noted that the minor's silence stemmed from emotional dependence and her belief in the promise of marriage. The delay became irrelevant once she discovered her pregnancy and informed her parents.

Upholding the sentence imposed by the trial court, the High Court directed the State Legal Services Authority (SLSA) to pay ₹1,80,000 (90% of the fine amount) to the victim within 15 days and an additional ₹2 lakh from its own funds as compensation. If the appellant is on bail, he must immediately surrender to serve the life sentence.

Case: Santosh Srivastava @ Manu Srivastava v. State of West Bengal & Anr.

Case No: C.R.A. 207 of 2018 

Click here to read order