IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a nuanced approach in cases involving consensual relationships between adolescents, considering the societal context and the maturity of the individuals involved.

JUDGMENT

1. This is an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C invoking the inherent power of this Court to be applied to the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioners.

2. The background of the matter relates to an FIR dated 29.11.2017 which was lodged by the mother of petitioner No. 2, alleging inter alia that on 29.11.2017 she had gone to Ganesh Das Hospital, Shillong for medical treatment of her daughter who was then 16 years of age as she was complaining of stomach ache and after being medically examined by the doctor, it was found out that she was two months' pregnant. On enquiry, the daughter revealed that she is having a relationship with the petitioner No. 1 herein for the last 10(ten) months.

3. On acknowledgement of the FIR, the police registered a case being, Umiam P.S Case No. 94(11)2017 under Section 376(2)(n) IPC r/w Section 4 POCSO Act, 2012 and investigation was launched. The Investigating Officer then filed the charge sheet holding that a prima facie case is found well established against the accused/petitioner No. 1 and he was accordingly forwarded to the Court for trial.

4. The learned Special Judge (POCSO), Ri-Bhoi District, Nongpoh took cognizance of the case and a Special POCSO Case No. 57 of 2018 under Section 376(2)(n) IPC r/w Sections 3 and 5(j)(ii) of the POCSO Act, 2012 was registered and trial commenced. In course of trial, the prosecution examined three witnesses namely, the victim/petitioner No. 2, complainant who is the mother of petitioner No. 2 and one Dr. (Ms.) Berity Sangma. On conclusion of the evidence, the statement of the accused/petitioner No. 1 was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The Court after hearing the argument of the parties, then passed the judgment dated 23.04.2021, holding that the accused/petitioner No.1 is found guilty for an offence under Section 5(j)(ii) of the POCSO Act, however no case can be made out under Section 376(2) (n) IPC and under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, was convicted. Consequently, vide order dated 28.04.2021 he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10(ten) years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only and in default thereof, to undergo another month of imprisonment. The said judgment and sentence was accordingly impugned herein.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. K.Ch. Gautam while appearing before this Court has submitted that the petitioner No. 2 had challenged the order of conviction and sentence by way of an appeal before this Court and the same is pending adjudication. However, there is no bar for preferring this petition before this Court.

6. Mr. Gautam has further submitted that the said FIR was lodged by the complainant under pressure from the members of the Child Welfare Committee and the police and the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 was added only on the basis of the positive pregnancy test of the victim/petitioner No. 2. However, throughout the proceedings, the petitioner No. 2 has maintained that she was having a love relationship with the petitioner No. 1 and there has been two occasions in which they had sexual physical contact, which resulted in the pregnancy. It is reiterated that even at the outset, the complainant as well as the victim/petitioner No. 2 are not desirous of filing the said FIR.

7. It is also submitted that the petitioners are now living together as husband and wife and they also had a male child who was born on 20.06.2018. Upon the petitioner No. 2 attaining majority, the petitioners have accordingly solemnized their marriage on 12.12.2019 and the same was duly registered before the Marriage Registrar, Nongpoh on 19.11.2020.

8. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioners where they are now living together as a happy family, the order of conviction of petitioner No. 1 has caused considerable hardship and inconvenience and cannot be comprehended.

9. It is again submitted that the love relationship between the petitioners and their cohabitation is