Madhya Pradesh High Court judge bats for reduction of age of sexual consent to 16
Judge Agarwal quashed FIR of rape of minor against a coaching teacher in Gwalior
Judge Agarwal quashed FIR of rape of minor against a coaching teacher in Gwalior
Judge Agarwal quashed FIR of rape of minor against a coaching teacher in Gwalior
Judge Agarwal quashed FIR of rape of minor against a coaching teacher in Gwalior
A Madhya Pradesh High Court judge has batted for reducing the age of sexual consent of girls to 16 from 18 years claiming that boys and girls reach puberty early “due to social media awareness and easily available internet connectivity.”
Judge Deepak Kumar Agarwal of the Gwalior bench of MP High Court requested the government of India to consider reducing the age of sexual consent for girls from 18 to 16 years, while disposing of a case of rape of a minor by a coaching class teacher filed in July 2020.
The age of sexual consent for females in India was 16 years till 2012, when it was increased to 18 years to bring uniformity with the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2013.
The judge ordered the quashing of the FIR and the case under trial against the accused Rahul Chandel Jatav (23) in the sessions court, considering the arguments of the defense lawyer that the case was fake and that the complainant was in a relationship with the accused.
After ordering the quashing of the FIR, the judge went on to take up the issue of the age of sexual consent for girls. “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 (female complainant) for the purpose of (sexual) consent that was 16 years and subsequently enhanced by amendment up to 18 years. Due to this amendment, fabric of society has been disturbed. Nowadays, 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 (Sic),” the order dated June 28 read.
The order further stated: “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. 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 (for sexual consent) as 16 years since they were well aware of the aforesaid facts. Generally, girls and boys of adolescent age develop friendship and thereafter, due to attraction make physical relationship. But, due to this rider, boy is treated like a criminal in 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 (sic).”
Agarwal then went on to request the government of India to consider the matter of reducing the age of consent to 16 years as earlier.
The case
The girl, a minor, had accused Rahul Jatav and another youth, Mukesh Chokotia, of repeatedly raping her, in a complaint filed with the Thatipur police in Gwalior on July 17, 2020. She alleged that Jatav had raped her for the first time in January 2020 by giving her a sedative-laced juice at his coaching centre. The accused allegedly made a video of the act and forced her to have sexual activity with him repeatedly. She further alleged that she got pregnant and Jatav fed her a pill and she had a miscarriage. The girl also accused Chokotia of repeatedly raping her for the past four years and assaulting her the day before the FIR was filed. Following the FIR, Jatav was arrested and has been in jail ever since.
Jatav’s lawyer Rajmani Bansal told THE WEEK that he argued before the High Court that the case against Rahul Jatav had been filed after a delay of six months and there has been no evidence of a video that was used to blackmail the girl, or of her pregnancy and consequent miscarriage.
“Also, the girl had given her age in the FIR as 15, though her school records proved that she was 17 years and eight months of age during registration of the FIR,” Bansal said. He said the as the case against his client was fake and he had a relationship with the accused with consent, he had filed a petition under section 482 of CrPC for quashing of the FIR, which the High Court granted.
While quashing the FIR, judge Agarwal also cited an order of Madras High Court from year 2021, where the judges had suggested amendments in the POCSO Act so that it could not be used to punish adolescents who are in physical relationships based upon the complaints of parents.
Judge Deepak Kumar Agarwal of the Gwalior bench of MP High Court requested the government of India to consider reducing the age of sexual consent for girls from 18 to 16 years, while disposing of a case of rape of a minor by a coaching class teacher filed in July 2020.
The age of sexual consent for females in India was 16 years till 2012, when it was increased to 18 years to bring uniformity with the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2013.
The judge ordered the quashing of the FIR and the case under trial against the accused Rahul Chandel Jatav (23) in the sessions court, considering the arguments of the defense lawyer that the case was fake and that the complainant was in a relationship with the accused.
After ordering the quashing of the FIR, the judge went on to take up the issue of the age of sexual consent for girls. “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 (female complainant) for the purpose of (sexual) consent that was 16 years and subsequently enhanced by amendment up to 18 years. Due to this amendment, fabric of society has been disturbed. Nowadays, 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 (Sic),” the order dated June 28 read.
The order further stated: “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. 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 (for sexual consent) as 16 years since they were well aware of the aforesaid facts. Generally, girls and boys of adolescent age develop friendship and thereafter, due to attraction make physical relationship. But, due to this rider, boy is treated like a criminal in 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 (sic).”
Agarwal then went on to request the government of India to consider the matter of reducing the age of consent to 16 years as earlier.
The case
The girl, a minor, had accused Rahul Jatav and another youth, Mukesh Chokotia, of repeatedly raping her, in a complaint filed with the Thatipur police in Gwalior on July 17, 2020. She alleged that Jatav had raped her for the first time in January 2020 by giving her a sedative-laced juice at his coaching centre. The accused allegedly made a video of the act and forced her to have sexual activity with him repeatedly. She further alleged that she got pregnant and Jatav fed her a pill and she had a miscarriage. The girl also accused Chokotia of repeatedly raping her for the past four years and assaulting her the day before the FIR was filed. Following the FIR, Jatav was arrested and has been in jail ever since.
Jatav’s lawyer Rajmani Bansal told THE WEEK that he argued before the High Court that the case against Rahul Jatav had been filed after a delay of six months and there has been no evidence of a video that was used to blackmail the girl, or of her pregnancy and consequent miscarriage.
“Also, the girl had given her age in the FIR as 15, though her school records proved that she was 17 years and eight months of age during registration of the FIR,” Bansal said. He said the as the case against his client was fake and he had a relationship with the accused with consent, he had filed a petition under section 482 of CrPC for quashing of the FIR, which the High Court granted.
While quashing the FIR, judge Agarwal also cited an order of Madras High Court from year 2021, where the judges had suggested amendments in the POCSO Act so that it could not be used to punish adolescents who are in physical relationships based upon the complaints of parents.