Subsequent Marriage During Bail Or Birth Of Child 'Immaterial' In POCSO Act Offence: MP High Court Upholds 20-Yr Jail Term

A bench of Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Ramkumar Choubey added that while the Supreme Court may grant relief in such cases exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, such power is not available to the High Court.

The observation came as the Bench dismissed a Criminal Appeal filed by one Sajan Bhatt, who had challenged his conviction and 20-year sentence for committing the offence of penetrative sexual assault against a minor.

The accused was convicted in February last year by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Narmadapuram, under Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

It was the prosecution's case was that the victim, a minor at the time of the incident in 2023, was subjected to repeated sexual assault by the appellant.

The victim's complaint alleged that she had become acquainted with the appellant and visited his house, where he violated her privacy against her will and threatened to kill her.

During the hearing of the appeal, the counsel for the appellant raised a 'mercy' plea seeking indulgence in the matter as the bench was apprised that while the appellant was on bail during the trial, the victim had performed a marriage with him during the trial.

The Court was also informed that a son was born out of this wedlock and was being taken care of by the victim. It was further argued that the victim had been abandoned by her own family and now, she had nobody else to rely upon.

It was also argued that the Coordinate Benches have been granting relief of suspension of sentence even in the case of a 14-year-old girl, whereas in the present case, the age of the victim was 17 years at the time of the incident and was a consenting adult.

Lastly, reliance was placed on recent judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescents 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 617, K. Kirubakaran Vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1048 and K. Dhandapani Vs. The State 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 477 to contend that the top court had shown indulgence in similar circumstances involving romantic relationships between minors and accused persons who later married.

Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted that the consent of the victim, who was, admittedly, a minor at the time of the incident, is immaterial and thus, no indulgence could be shown.

Against the backdrop of these submissions, the Division Bench found the defence of consent legally unsustainable as it noted that the victim was undeniably a minor at the time of the incident, which made her consent 'immaterial'.

The court thus concluded that the appellant's actions fell squarely within the definition of repeatedly penetrative sexual assault under Section 5(l) of the Act.

Justice Vivek Agarwal, authoring the judgment, clarified that in the judgments relied upon by the appellant, the Supreme Court has shown indulgence in exercising its authority under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, a power which is not available to the HC.

"As per the written complaint of the victim (Ex.P/4), she was victim of repeatedly penetrative sexual assault, therefore, in our opinion, subsequent event of marriage during bail or birth of a child out of the said wedlock, are immaterial to show indulgence in terms of the provisions contained in the POCSO Act".

With this observation, the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the 20-year rigorous imprisonment awarded by the trial court.