‘Physical relations’ cannot necessarily mean sexual assault, declares Delhi High Court
A man convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) and sentenced to life imprisonment has been acquitted by the Delhi High Court. The court ruled that the use of the phrase “physical relations” by the minor survivor cannot automatically be interpreted as evidence of sexual assault. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Pratibha M. Singh and Amit Sharma, was reported by PTI on December 23.
The case originated in March 2017, when the mother of a 14-year-old girl lodged a complaint, alleging that her daughter had been lured and abducted by an unknown individual. The girl was later located in Faridabad with the accused, who was subsequently arrested. Following the trial, the accused was convicted in December 2023 of rape under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act. The trial court sentenced him to imprisonment for the remainder of his life.
‘Physical relations’ not necessarily assault?
During the appeal hearing, the high court scrutinized the evidence and observed inconsistencies in the trial court’s reasoning. As per the report by Bench and Bar, the court said, “The survivor, in fact, used the phrase ‘physical relations’, but there is no clarity as to what she meant by using the said phrase. Even the use of the words ‘samband banaya’ is not sufficient to establish an offence under Section 3 of the POCSO Act or under Section 376 IPC. Though consent would not matter if the girl is a minor under the POCSO Act, the phrase ‘physical relations’ cannot be converted automatically into sexual intercourse let alone sexual assault.”
The court also highlighted that while consent is irrelevant under the POCSO Act for minors, the terminology used by the survivor in this instance was ambiguous and insufficient to establish the alleged offenses.
ALSO READ – Uber, Ola Have Different Prices on Android and Apple? India Starts Probe
The high court’s judgment noted that the trial court’s decision lacked reasoning and failed to present a rationale supporting the conviction. Consequently, the benefit of the doubt was given to the accused, and the earlier judgment was set aside. The bench ruled in favor of the appeal filed by the accused, acquitting him of all charges.
