The court emphasizes that consent of a minor is immaterial in sexual assault cases, dismissing appeal for leniency due to post-conviction marriage and childbirth.
In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur, on December 15, 2025, reaffirmed the conviction of Sajan Bhatt under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), despite subsequent events of marriage and childbirth with the minor victim. The judgment was delivered by a division bench comprising Justices Vivek Agarwal and Ramkumar Choubey, who underscored the legal stance that the consent of a minor is not recognized under the POCSO Act.
Sajan Bhatt, the appellant, had challenged the judgment of the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Narmadapuram, which sentenced him to 20 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000 for repeated penetrative sexual assault on a minor, as per Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Despite the appellant's plea highlighting his marriage to the victim and the birth of their child during his bail period, the High Court maintained that these developments do not mitigate the criminal liability under the POCSO Act.
The court noted that the victim was indisputably below 18 years at the time of the incidents, as evidenced by her birth certificate and school records, thus qualifying as a "child" under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act. The bench also dismissed the appellant's argument for leniency based on coordinate bench decisions in similar cases, stating that the consent of a minor is legally invalid.
Public Prosecutor Shri Ajay Tamrakar argued against the appellant's plea, stressing that subsequent personal developments cannot alter the legal consequences of the offenses committed. He highlighted the statutory provision that consent from a minor is immaterial, thereby affirming the trial court's stance.
The appeal was supported by references to judgments from the Supreme Court, where leniency was shown under Article 142 of the Constitution. However, the High Court clarified that such powers are exclusive to the Supreme Court, and it lacks jurisdiction to exercise similar discretion.
The judgment has been viewed as a reinforcement of the principles enshrined in the POCSO Act, emphasizing the protection of minors from sexual offenses and upholding stringent penalties for violators, irrespective of subsequent personal or social circumstances.
Bottom Line:
POCSO Act - Consent of a minor is immaterial in the eyes of law. Subsequent events such as marriage or birth of a child do not mitigate the applicability of penal provisions under the POCSO Act.
Statutory provision(s): Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (Sections 5(l), 6), Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Section 376(2)(n)), Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (Section 94).
Sajan Bhatt v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (Madhya Pradesh)(Jabalpur)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2822443
