Meghalaya HC quashes POCSO charges against man, expresses concern on its misuse

The high court also urged the legislature to “keep pace with the changing societal needs and bring about necessary changes in law and more particularly in a stringent law such as the POCSO Act”

The Meghalaya high court on Wednesday quashed charges of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act against a man stating that “consensual sexual intercourse with a 16-year-old girl didn’t come under the purview of the legislation”.

Meghalaya high court (HT Photo)

The court of justice Wanlura Diengdoh released John Franklin Shylla forthwith, citing that sometimes “a large array of cases filed under POCSO seems to be those arising based on complaints registered by the families of adolescents and teenagers who are involved in romantic relationships with each other,” while emphasising, “The scheme of the Act clearly shows that it did not intend to bring within its scope or ambit, cases of the nature where adolescents or teenagers involved in romantic relationships are concerned.”

The high court also urged the legislature to “keep pace with the changing societal needs and bring about necessary changes in law and more particularly in a stringent law such as the POCSO Act”.

Shylla, in his early twenties, was arrested in a special (POCSO) case in 2021 under Section 3 (a)/4 of the POCSO Act after a first information report (FIR) was filed against him by a woman on 1 January 2021, before the in-charge, Khapmara, Umroi police information centre in Meghalaya’s Ri-Bhoi district, accusing him of kidnapping and getting in a sexual relationship with her 16-year-old.

He was made to stand trial before the court of the special judge (POCSO), Ri-Bhoi district, Nongpoh who had taken cognizance of the matter following which a case was registered.

Shylla filed an application before the state high court under Section 482 CrPC with a prayer to set aside and quash the entire proceedings before the court of the learned special judge mentioned above.

The counsels for the petitioner S Deb and S Dey argued that the girl has however strongly denied the allegation and in her statement under Section 164 as well as in her deposition before the court clearly stated that she was the “girlfriend of the petitioner at the relevant point in time and that it was only on that fateful night on 18.01.2021 that they had sexual intercourse, but the same was with her consent and there was no force involved in it”. And since there is no evidence of any penetrative sexual assault, the petitioner has therefore made a prayer before this court for the proceedings against him to be set aside and quashed, the lawyers argued.

In concurrence, Meghalaya additional public prosecutor H Kharmih in his submission conceded that “the evidence of the alleged victim would suggest that there was no force involved in the sexual act between the parties herein and that the alleged victim has also confirmed this fact in her evidence, therefore, this is a testimony that perhaps there may not have been any element of sexual assault as far as the incident is concerned. It is prayed that the discretionary power of this court will be exercised accordingly”.

After carefully perusing the respective submissions presented by both sides, justice Diengdoh stated, “In similar matters of this kind, in cases involving two young people, particularly if they are said to be boyfriend and girlfriend or said to be married, even though that would be contrary to the related provisions of law, the fact remains that law must follow justice and in the exercise of the inherent power under Section 482 CrPC, it would be appropriate that ends of justice is met and that the said principle be applied considerably in certain relevant cases”.

Confirming that incidents of this nature keep occurring regularly even now in villages and towns and occasionally in cities, the judge said after the parents or family lodge a complaint, the police register FIRs for offences of kidnapping and various offences under the POCSO Act. Several criminal cases booked under the POCSO Act fall under this category.

“As a consequence of such an FIR being registered, invariably the boy gets arrested and thereafter, his youthful life comes to a grinding halt. The provisions of the POCSO Act, as it stands today, will surely make the acts of the boy an offence due to its stringent nature. An adolescent boy caught in a situation like this will surely have no defence if the criminal case is taken to its logical end. 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 POCSO Act,” justice Diengdoh said.

Noting that any adolescent boy or girl who is in the grip 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, justice Diengdoh said, “These incidents should never be perceived from an adult’s point of view and such an understanding will in fact lead to lack of empathy. An adolescent boy who is sent to prison in a case of this nature will be persecuted throughout his life.”

He further implored, “It is high time that the legislature takes into consideration cases of this nature involving adolescents involved in relationships and swiftly bring in necessary amendments under the Act. The legislature has to keep pace with the changing societal needs and bring about necessary changes in law and more particularly in a stringent law such as the POCSO Act.”

Rounding up its decision, the court observed that though the alleged victim girl is a minor as admitted by her in her statement under Section 164 as well as in her deposition before the court of being about 16 years of age or so at that relevant point of time, the court looking into the physical and mental development of an adolescent of that age group, would consider it logical that such a person is capable of making a conscious decision as regard his or her well-being as to the actual act of sexual intercourse.

“Prima facie, it appears that there is no mens rea involved. Be that as it may, at this juncture, this court is of the opinion that the proceeding of the case before the trial court would serve no purpose in the peculiar facts and circumstances. On due consideration being given to the submission of the parties, the prayer of the petitioner is hereby allowed,” the court stated while ruling, “Accordingly, the said FIR dated 19.01.2021 filed by the respondent No. 2 herein and also the consequent proceedings in special (POCSO) case No. 5 of 2021 are hereby set aside and quashed. The petitioner is released and discharged from any liability as far as the said case is concerned.”