Madhya Pradesh High Court Judge Deepak Kumar Agarwal in a order observed this Court would like to share its experience
as a Judge that before amendments in IPC under Section 375 of IPC regarding age of prosecutrix for the purpose of consent that was 16 years and subsequently enhanced by amendment upto 18 years due to this amendment, fabric of society has been disturbed.
Thus, I request Government of India to think over the matter for reducing the age of prosecutrix from 18 to 16 years as earlier before amendments so that injustice should be redressed, the court order of June 27, 2023 said.
Before parting with the case, this Court would like to share its experience
as a Judge that before amendments in IPC under Section 375 of IPC regarding age of prosecutrix for the purpose of consent that was 16 years and subsequently enhanced by amendment upto 18 years due to this amendment, fabric of society has been disturbed, the court order said.
Now a days, every male or female near the age of 14 years due to social media awareness and easily accessible internet connectivity is getting puberty in early age. Owing to this, female and male child are getting attraction and these attractions are resulting into physical relationship with consent. In these cases, male persons are not at all criminal, the court order said.
It is only a matter of age when they come into contact with female and develop physical relationship. Only due to this reason, lawmakers in IPC when it came into force put the age of female as 16 years since they were well aware of the aforesaid facts.
Generally, girls and boys of adolescents age develop friendship and thereafter, due to attraction make physical relationship. But, due to this rider boy is treated like a criminal in the society.
Today, most of criminal cases in which prosecutrix is under 18 years of age, due to aforesaid anomaly, injustice is going on with adolescent boys, the court order said.
Thus, I request Government of India to think over the matter for reducing the age of prosecutrix from 18 to 16 years as earlier before amendments so that injustice should be redressed, the court order said.
The impugned FIR as well as all consequential proceedings arising out of Crime No.378/2020 registered against the present petitioner at Police Station Thatipur, District Gwalior for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(F) (n), 376(3), 315 of IPC as well as under Section 5(L)(O)/6 of POCSO Act and 66 of IT Act as well as the Sessions Trial No.124/2020 pending before learned 13th Additional Sessions Judge, and Special Judge POCSO Act are hereby quashed, the court order said.
This Court is of the opinion that the proceeding of the case before the trial Court would serve no purpose in the peculiar facts and circumstances. On due consideration being given to the submission of the parties, the prayer of the petitioner is hereby allowed, the court order said.
As per prosecution story, she was minor at the time of incident. This Court looking into the physical and mental development of an adolescent of that
age group, would consider it logical that such a person is capable of making
conscious decision as regard his or her well-being beside this as per complaint of prosecutrix, first she was engaged physically with present petitioner, thereafter, with another person as to the actual act of sexual intercourse. Prima facie, it appears that there is no mens rea involved, the court order said.
