Guwahati: In a significant judgement, the Meghalaya High Court has held that a 16-year-old is capable of making a conscious decision with regard to an act of sexual intercourse.
The court made this observation while quashing an FIR for offences under sections 3 & 4 of the POCSO Act pertaining to penetrative sexual assault on a minor, Live Law reported.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
“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 a conscious decision as regard his or her well-being as to the actual act of sexual intercourse,” observed a Meghalaya HC bench of Justice W. Diengdoh.
The bench was hearing a petition filed by a man seeking the quashing of an FIR for offences under POCSO claiming that the act was not a case of sexual assault but was purely a consensual act as the petitioner and the alleged victim were in love with each other.
The man was employed in various households and became acquainted with the alleged victim. It is alleged that they went to the petitioner’s uncle’s house where they engaged in sexual intercourse.
Ready for a challenge? Click here to take our quiz and show off your knowledge!
The following day, the mother of the 16-year-old girl filed a First Information Report (FIR) against the man under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the POCSO Act 2012.
The petitioner contended that the alleged incident does not constitute sexual assault since the survivor herself explicitly disclosed in her statement under Section 164 CrPC and during her testimony in court that she is the petitioner’s girlfriend.
Further, the girl affirmed that the sexual intercourse took place with her consent and there was no employment of force involved.
After a thorough examination of the petitioner’s submissions and previous legal precedents, the Court determined that the survivor’s statement was in support of the petitioner’s case, despite her being a minor at approximately 16 years of age.
The Court drew upon the Madras High Court’s ruling in Vijayalakshmi and Another v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station (2021) and concluded that considering the physical and mental development of individuals in the survivor’s age group, it is reasonable to presume that they are capable of making informed decisions regarding sexual intercourse.
“Prima facie, it appears that there is no men’s rea involved,” stated the Court as it quashed the proceedings against the petitioner.