The Delhi High Court recently emphasized that love is a fundamental human experience and that the legal framework should focus on preventing exploitation and abuse rather than penalizing adolescent relationships.

Justice Jasmeet Singh, while delivering the judgment, observed, “Love is a fundamental human experience, and adolescents have the right to form emotional connections… The focus of the law should be on preventing exploitation and abuse rather than punishing love.”

The case originated from a complaint filed by the father of a 17-year-old girl who had gone missing. During the investigation, the girl and her boyfriend were located in Dharuhera and brought back to Delhi. Subsequently, the boyfriend was charged under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

After assessing the evidence, the Trial Court acquitted the boyfriend, prompting the State to challenge the verdict through an appeal.

For the State: Additional Public Prosecutor Yudhvir Singh Chauhan argued that the girl, being 17 years old, had testified that she had physical relations with her boyfriend, thereby constituting penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act.

For the Defense: Advocate Vinay Kumar Sharma contended that the Trial Court had already determined that the relationship was consensual and that there was no indication of forceful sexual assault.

The court examined conflicting records regarding the girl’s age:

• The school records listed her date of birth as January 20, 1998, making her 16 years, 10 months, and 21 days old at the time of the incident.

• The prosecution failed to establish the reliability of her uncle’s affidavit, as he was not examined as a witness.

• The girl and her mother claimed her birth date was December 22, 1998, making her 15 years, 11 months, and 19 days old, but failed to provide supporting evidence.

Given these inconsistencies, the court concluded that the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the girl was below 18 years old, a crucial requirement under the POCSO Act.

The court acknowledged the challenges in applying the POCSO Act to cases involving adolescent relationships. It emphasized that when a prosecutrix is close to 17 years old and there is no conclusive proof of age, enforcing stringent provisions of the POCSO Act may lead to unjust outcomes. However, if clear documentary evidence establishes that the victim is significantly younger (14 or 15 years old), overlooking the Act would amount to a miscarriage of justice.

In this case, the girl had consistently stated in her Section 164 CrPC statement and court testimony that her relationship with the boyfriend was consensual. The court underscored the need for a legal approach that considers the evolving societal and legal perspectives on adolescent relationships.

The judgment reiterated that the legal system should safeguard young individuals' rights to love while ensuring their safety and well-being. The court noted, “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.”

While the POCSO Act was enacted to protect minors, the court pointed out that it does not differentiate between voluntary relationships and coercion. “The Act, however, did not choose to draw any distinction as to a girl of less than 18 who chooses a partner out of her own choice and volition. Therefore, any sexual act or intercourse by a man with such a girl would constitute an offence under various provisions of the POCSO Act of 2012,” the court remarked.

Given that the girl remained firm in her statements, the court deemed it inappropriate to disregard her consent solely due to her being a few months short of adulthood.

Case Title: State v Hitesh (2025:DHC:944)
For Appellant: Additional Public Prosecutor Yudhvir Singh Chauhan
For Respondent: Advocates Vinay Kumar Sharma, Prince, Aaditya, Ritu Kumari