E-Paper
16-year-old capable of making decision on sexual intercourse: Meghalaya High Court
16-year-old's mother filed an FIR under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act 2012 against the petitioner.
The Meghalaya Hight Court quashed a First Information Report (FIR) pertaining to sexual assault on a minor stating that a 16-year-old was capable of making her own conscious decisions regarding the act of sexual intercourse.
The bench of Justice W. Diengdoh was hearing a plea which was seeking quashing of an FIR which was registered under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO). The plea claimed that it was not an act of sexual assault but was rather “purely consensual” as the petitioner and the alleged victim were in love, LiveLaw reported.
The Bench said, “This Court looking into the physical and mental development of an adolescent of that age group (referring to minor of around 16 years of age), would consider it logical that such a person is capable of making conscious decision as regard his or her well-being as to the actual act of sexual intercourse.”
LiveLaw reported that the petitioner worked in several households and that is how he came to know the alleged victim. It has also been reported that it was the house of petitioner's uncle where the two engaged in sexual intercourse.
Next day, the 16-year-old's mother filed an FIR under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act 2012 against the petitioner.
The petitioner, in the court, claimed that it was not an act of sexual assault since the minor girl had disclosed in her statement and testimony that she was the petitioner's girlfriend as well as confirmed that the sexual intercourse took place with her consent and no force was exercised.
After examining the statements and petitioner's submissions, the court stated that the minor's statements were in favour of the petitioner.
"Prima facie, it appears that there is no mens rea involved," the court said as it quashed the case against the petitioner.
