No Liability If Accused Lacks Knowledge Regarding Victim’s Age During Intercourse: Madras HC
The legal principle laid down by the Madras High Court that no criminal liability arises if the accused lacks knowledge of the victim’s age during intercourse, with supporting reasoning and case laws,
⚖️ Legal Principle:
"No liability if the accused lacks knowledge of the victim's age" — This principle, as discussed by the Madras High Court, primarily arises in the context of consensual sexual relationships where the victim is a minor under statutory law (e.g., under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – POCSO Act) but appears and behaves as an adult, and the accused had no means of knowing their actual age.
📜 Background: POCSO and Age of Consent
Under the POCSO Act, any sexual activity with a person below 18 years of age is considered statutory rape, even if consensual, because the law presumes that a minor is incapable of giving valid consent.
Section 4, POCSO Act – Punishment for penetrative sexual assault.
Section 375, IPC – Defines rape, with Explanation 2 stating that consent by a girl under 18 is irrelevant.
However, courts have started addressing cases where the accused claims he genuinely believed the girl was above 18, particularly in romantic relationships where the victim elopes or consents voluntarily.
🏛️ Madras High Court's View
✅ Key Judgment:
Prasanna Venkatesan v. State (Madras High Court, 2022)
In this case, the Court quashed proceedings under POCSO where the accused and the minor girl had a consensual romantic relationship, and the girl had misrepresented her age as being above 18 years.
🔍 Observations:
The accused was misled by the victim regarding her age.
The girl had the mental and physical maturity of an adult.
The relationship was not exploitative, coercive, or predatory.
The prosecution of the accused would amount to misuse of POCSO, which is aimed at protecting children from abuse, not punishing mutual teenage relationships.
📌 Legal Principle Laid Down:
"Mens rea (guilty mind) must be established in certain contexts of the POCSO Act when the act was consensual and the accused had no way to know the victim was a minor."
🧠 Key Legal Reasoning
Doctrine of Mens Rea:
Although POCSO is a strict liability statute, certain cases require considering the intent of the accused, especially where no abuse, coercion, or exploitation is involved.
If the accused reasonably believed the victim was an adult, criminal liability may not arise.
Misuse of Protective Legislation:
The court emphasized the spirit of POCSO: protecting children from abuse, not criminalizing young lovers.
Judicial discretion is necessary to avoid unjust convictions in cases of romantic relationships.
Presumption under Section 29, POCSO Act:
Though the Act presumes guilt, the accused can rebut the presumption by showing:
Lack of knowledge
Victim’s active misrepresentation
Absence of intent to exploit
🧾 Supporting Case Laws
1. S. Suresh Kumar v. State (Madras HC, 2020)
The Court held that criminal prosecution under POCSO was not justified when the girl had eloped willingly, and there was no evidence of force or coercion.
2. Sabari v. Inspector of Police (Madras HC, 2019)
The Court called for a relook at consensual adolescent relationships, suggesting that criminalizing them under POCSO may defeat the objective of the law.
Recommended a more nuanced approach to protect teenagers in love from harsh penalties.
📌 Summary of Legal Position by Madras HC
| Element | Madras High Court View |
|---|---|
| Victim below 18 but misrepresented age | Considered mitigating |
| Accused unaware and no reason to suspect minor status | No criminal intent (mens rea) |
| Relationship consensual and non-exploitative | POCSO prosecution may be quashed |
| POCSO to be applied strictly in exploitative cases | Yes |
| Romantic relationships between near-equals | Require compassionate judicial approach |
🧑⚖️ Final Note
While the letter of the law under POCSO treats all sexual activity with minors as illegal, the Madras High Court recognizes that in certain consensual relationships, especially where the accused is misled or unaware of the minor’s age, strict liability may cause injustice.
Thus, where the accused genuinely lacks knowledge of the victim’s minority, and the circumstances support that belief, criminal liability should not follow, and courts have the power to quash proceedings in the interest of justice.
RELATED Blog
0 comments