Adolescent love cannot be criminalised in the absence of exploitation: Delhi High Court

In a groundbreaking decision on the enforcement of the criminal law on relationships between adolescents, the Delhi High court ruled that consensual romantic relationships involving adolescents must not be subject to criminal prosecution, especially in cases where there is no overt evidence of exploitation or abuse, regardless of whether they were made possible by the Protection of Children against Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.Justice Jasmeet Singh made these observations while dismissing a plea submitted by the State seeking to overturn the acquittal of a young man accused under Section 4 of the POCSO Act. The Court emphasized that love and emotional bonding between adolescents is a natural part of human development, and the relationship in question should not be subject to criminalization in the absence of coercion and control. Case BackgroundThe case was initiated by a complaint that the father of a 17-year-old girl had lodged in December 2014, claiming that after the girl did not come back home after tuition, she was missing.

A young man in the same locality was also missing and suspicion fell on him. They were later found with both two days later at Dharuhera and were taken back to Delhi.The case was registered and the young man was accused based on the POCSO Act stating that he had sex with a minor. After trial, the Sessions Court found him not guilty in February 2020, after the prosecution could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the girl was under 18 years old during the incident despite the fact that physical relations had taken place.

It was further documented in the trial court that the relationship was consensual.The State challenged this acquittal before the High Court.Considerations and Observations by the High CourtOne of the central aspects considered by the High Court was the prosecutrix’s own version. In her statement under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code and during her testimony before the trial court, the girl stated that she had accompanied the accused of her own free will and that the physical relationship between them was consensual.The Court observed that nothing was recorded to indicate force, coercion or inducement and medical evidence did not substantiate charges of sexual assault.In this regard, Justice Jasmeet Singh pointed out that the difference between exploitation and consensual adolescent relationships needs to be noted by the law.“I believe that societal and legal views on adolescent love should emphasize the rights of young individuals to engage in romantic relationships that are free from exploitation and abuse,” the Court observed.The Court in some of its most forceful observations pointed out that the criminal law cannot be employed as a tool to penalize youths who tend to create emotional attachments.Justice Singh said:“Love is a fundamental human experience, and adolescents have the right to form emotional connections. The law should evolve to acknowledge and respect these relationships, as long as they are consensual and free from coercion,”The Court stressed that even though the legal age of consent is an important aspect of the protection of children, the criminalization of affection or romantic relationship should not be the priority of the law, but rather the exclusion of children to exploitation, abuse, and violence.“The legal system must safeguard the rights of young individuals to love while ensuring their safety and well-being. I advocate for a compassionate approach that prioritizes understanding over punishment in cases involving adolescent love,” the Court added.The other crucial aspect of the case was the inability of the prosecution to provide a conclusive testimony of the age of the applicant. The prosecution used school records that she was born in January 1998 meaning she would be a minor during the time.

Yet, the records were founded on an affidavit given by her uncle during school admission and the uncle was not even tested as a witness.The High Court asserted that age determination in such cases should be in strict adherence to Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act which provides a clear order of preference in the order of documents to be used in establishing age. The Court believed that a conviction that was not accompanied with reliable and corroborated proof of age would not be safe under the POCSO Act.It observed that convicting a person under such a strict law without definitive proof of minor would be “harsh and unjust”, especially when the age difference between the prosecutrix and the age of majority is only one or two years.Justice Singh then explained that this practice does not weaken the protective spirit of the POCSO Act. Instead, it makes sure that the law is enforced in a way that is congruent to fairness and proportionality.The Court further observed that such a line of reasoning could not be applied in the situation where credible documents determine that the victim is far below the age of majority say 14 or 15 years because any failure to comply with POCSO would be itself an injustice. But in borderline cases involving adolescents who are at the verge of becoming adults, the Court asserted that their opinions, maturity and consent which is constant cannot be swept away in a mechanical way.The Court stated:“Where the minor is certain and unshaken in her opinion and desire, it would not be right and proper for this Court to brush aside her views on the ground that she is not 18 years of age.”Having reviewed the evidence, the testimony, information, and laws, the High Court found the acquittal of the trial court to be reasonably justified and founded on known laws. The Court believed that the prosecution had not proven beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was a minor or that the relationship was not consensual.In this regard, leave to appeal was denied to the State, and the acquittal of the accused was affirmed.Case title: State vs HiteshFor Petitioner: Mr. Yudhvir Singh Chauhan, APP with SI Himanshu, PS Jaffarpur KalanFor Respondent: Mr. Vinay Kumar Sharma, Mr. Prince, Mr. Aaditya, Ms. Ritu Kumari, Advs.(Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR.)