Ghaziabad: A minor’s consent has no legal bearing, a special Pocso court observed while sentencing a man to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment for abduction and penetrative sexual assault of a 16-year-old girl in 2021.Special additional sessions judge Poonam-II convicted the accused on Monday under sections 363 (kidnapping), 366 (kidnapping for illicit sexual intercourse or marriage) and 376 (rape) of IPC, and Section 4 of the Pocso Act.The court awarded 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 20,000 under Section 4 of the Pocso Act, which has the same punitive provisions as those of section 376 IPC. It also awarded five years’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5,000 under Section 366 of IPC. The sentences will run concurrently and the period already spent in custody will be adjusted against the sentence.The case dates back to Sept 1, 2021, when the minor went missing. Her elder brother lodged an FIR at Tilamore police station on Sept 5, alleging that their neighbour had lured her away. He also alleged that when the family approached the accused’s relatives, they threatened them and said they would marry the girl to their son.Police initially registered a case under sections 363, 366, 504 (intentional insult to breach peace) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of IPC. After investigation, a case was registered under sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC along with section 5/6 of Pocso Act against the accused.A few days later, the accused and his family brought the girl to the police station, following which the accused was arrested. Police filed the chargesheet on Nov 2 and the court framed charges on Jan 3, 2022.The accused denied the charges and claimed that the girl was not a minor and had accompanied him willingly to marry him. He produced photographs of a marriage ceremony at an Arya Samaj temple and alleged that he had been falsely implicated because of religious differences between the two families.The prosecution examined six witnesses, including the girl, her brother and the doctor who conducted her medical examination. The defence did not examine any witnesses but submitted documents and photographs to support its claim of consent and marriage.The girl told the court that the accused approached her while she was attending to her sister-in-law in a hospital and offered to take her for food. She alleged that she was later forced into a white car and taken for marriage. She said she refused to marry him and was subsequently raped.The defence argued that there was no documentary proof of her age on record. The court, however, relied on the date of birth recorded by her school — May 6, 2005 — and calculated her age at the time of the incident as 16 years, three months and 25 days. The court held that the girl was a minor at the time of the incident and that her consent could not be relied upon as a defence.The prosecution also relied on forensic evidence. Special public prosecutor Satish Sharma told the court that DNA testing of a male allele found on the girl’s vaginal swab and a blood sample of the accused showed a match.The court held that the girl’s statement was credible and was supported by the scientific evidence. It concluded that the prosecution had established that the accused had taken the minor from her legal guardian without consent and had subjected her to penetrative sexual assault.
