Punjab and Haryana High Court suspends 20-year POCSO sentence of minor convict — here’s why

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has suspended a 20-year rigorous imprisonment sentence awarded under the POCSO Act to a child in conflict with law, holding that the peculiar facts of the case — including the proximity of age between the minors, delayed reporting of the offence, clean antecedents of the convict and the likelihood of a long wait for the appeal to be heard — justified interim relief.

The order was passed by a Division Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur while allowing an application for suspension of sentence during the pendency of the criminal appeal. 

What was before the High Court order

The applicant was convicted by the Sessions Court, Patiala, for offences under provisions of the IPC and Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act, and sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment. At the time of the alleged incident in February 2023, the applicant was about 17 years and five months old, while the victim was approximately 13 years and 10 months old. Despite being a minor, the applicant was tried as an adult under the Juvenile Justice framework.

Both were minors, age gap remained central

The court observed that the applicant himself was a minor at the relevant time. “Secondly, but primarily, the accused was also a child, being a minor for all purposes except for the definition of heinous offences under the Juvenile Justice Act.”

The Bench repeatedly returned to the narrow age gap of about four years, describing it as a factor the legislature had not directly addressed while framing stringent statutory rape provisions.

Consent has no legal value under POCSO

The High Court made it explicit that the fundamental legal obstacle for the applicant lay in the statutory framework itself. Under the law, a girl below the age of 18 cannot legally consent to sexual intercourse, and even if she does, such consent has no legal recognition. Any sexual act with a minor automatically amounts to statutory rape under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and Sections 3 and 5 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

At the same time, the court acknowledged a broader tension inherent in the statutory scheme. It was observed that in cases involving two adolescents, neither of whom may be aware of the serious legal consequences of intimacy, the law operates with absolute rigidity, without factoring in age proximity or maturity levels.

“Probably, neither the boy nor the girl would be aware of the Sovereign’s restrictions before they could go intimate,” the Bench observed.

Age gap as a judicial consideration at interim stage

The judges noted that when such cases are caught in the statutory framework enacted by Parliament, the age gap between the minors assumes significance, even though the statute does not expressly recognise it as a mitigating factor. Where the age difference is small and surrounding indicators — such as absence of injuries, lack of coercion and no allegation of cruelty — point towards consensual involvement, the court said a balancing exercise becomes necessary.

“Thus, when the age gap between the boy and the girl is little, and all other tell-tale signs of coitus point towards consent, the gigantic scale of justice would sway to strike a balance between the statutes and the ground realities,” the Bench observed.

The court clarified that this reasoning does not dilute the statutory offence, but becomes relevant while deciding interim relief, such as suspension of sentence, particularly when the appeal is unlikely to be heard in the near future.

Consent irrelevant, but circumstances require scrutiny

While reiterating that consent is legally immaterial under the POCSO Act and any sexual intercourse with a minor constitutes statutory rape, the court noted that certain surrounding circumstances required detailed examination at the final hearing.

Referring to the absence of injuries and allegations of cruelty, the judges observed: “When the age gap between the boy and the girl is little, and all other tell-tale signs of coitus point towards consent, the gigantic scale of justice would sway to strike a balance between the statutes and the ground realities.”

The court clarified that these aspects could not dilute the statutory offence but were relevant while considering suspension of sentence.

Parity argument rejected

The court first dealt with the plea of parity with a co-accused whose sentence had earlier been suspended by a coordinate Bench. Rejecting the argument, the judges noted that the co-accused had been awarded a maximum sentence of five years, whereas the applicant had been sentenced to 20 years under the POCSO Act.

“On the face of it, the applicant is not entitled to suspension of sentence on the grounds of parity,” the Bench observed.

Delay in FIR weighed with the court

One of the significant factors influencing the decision was the delay in lodging the FIR. While the alleged sexual relationship was stated to have occurred in February 2023, the FIR was registered only in the second half of March 2023.

The Bench observed that the complaint surfaced only after the girl was allegedly seen with the applicant by her maternal uncle. “It means that if the victim’s uncle had not spotted her along with the applicant, then in all probabilities no complaint would have been made to the police,” the court recorded.

First offender, clean antecedents

Another factor that weighed in favour of the applicant was his clean antecedents. “The applicant is a first offender… this Court cannot rule out and ignore the fact that the applicant has clean antecedents,” the Bench noted, even while acknowledging the seriousness of the offence.

Formative age and right to education

The High Court also took note of the applicant’s age and prospects of rehabilitation. “The applicant is a young boy and is in the formative years of skill development… he should not be restricted from acquiring employable education,” the court observed.

Sentence suspended with stringent conditions

Suspending the sentence without commenting on the merits of the case, the court directed the applicant to furnish bail bonds of ₹25,000 with one surety, and imposed strict safeguards, including staying away from the victim and her family; mandatory disclosure and updating of address and contact details; surrender of all firearms, ammunition and arms licences; and a warning that repetition of the offence or commission of any serious non-bailable offence would lead to cancellation of the relief.

Larger legal context

The order reflects the High Court’s attempt to strike a balance between the rigour of POCSO, the juvenile justice framework, and ground realities involving adolescents, particularly where prolonged appellate delays risk rendering the right to appeal illusory. The criminal appeal against conviction remains pending.