Marriage after child sex abuse does not mitigate the act: Delhi HC


The Delhi High Court, dealing with a bail plea under the POCSO Act, observed on Friday that just because such sexual abuse results in a connection between the victim and the accused in violation of the provisions of the law or result in the birth of a child, this does not mitigate the act in any way.

Judge Anoop Kumar Mendiratta was hearing the bail plea of ​​a 27-year-old man who was charged under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act (POCSO) with sexually exploiting an underage girl but later married her.

According to the case, the underage girl’s mother had complained that a stranger had abducted her 15-year-old daughter, who had been missing since July 9, 2019. Subsequently, a habeas corpus petition was filed and the investigation was transferred to the Crime Branch. The accused during the investigation misled the investigative body by suppressing the whereabouts of the victim, in accordance with the FIR.

Finally, based on mobile technical surveillance, the victim was finally recovered on October 5, 2021, together with her 8-month-old daughter from the accused’s house and she was also approximately one and a half months pregnant at that time. .

Pursuant to the order, the petitioner lured the victim and allegedly married her at a temple in Delhi.

Counsel for the accused argued that he is in custody on October 6, 2021 and that the relationship between the parties was voluntary. He also argued that the petitioner is obligated to care for the victim and her children.

In the order, the court noted that a girl faces several adverse challenges if she is married before the age of 18, noting that the victim was studying in class 9 and was 14 years and six months old at the time of the marriage. ‘removal.

“…In addition, section 375 defines ‘rape’ and provides that a man commits ‘rape’ if he has sexual intercourse with a woman in circumstances falling within one of the seven descriptions mentioned in the article. Section 6 of Section 375 specifies that if the woman is under the age of 18, sexual intercourse with her, with or without consent, constitutes ‘rape’,” the court said.

Accordingly, the bail application was denied.


Comments are closed.