Back
No Alarm, No Consent: Uttarakhand HC Shields Minor Victims in POCSO Appeal
In a significant ruling reinforcing protections for child victims, the dismissed a criminal appeal on , upholding a 10-year rigorous imprisonment sentence under . Justice Ashish Naithani affirmed the trial court's conviction of Sagar Ray , who was accused of enticing a minor girl, kidnapping her, and committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault. The decision underscores that a minor's behavior cannot be twisted into evidence of consent.
From Enticement to Courtroom Battle
The ordeal began when the victim, confirmed a minor through school records, was allegedly lured away from her parents' custody by Sagar Ray. He faced charges under Sections 363 (kidnapping) and 367 (kidnapping with intent to cause grievous hurt or slavery) of the , alongside the grave POCSO provisions. An FIR led to investigation, medical examination of the victim, her statement under , and a charge-sheet. The convicted Ray in after trials featuring victim testimony, parental accounts, and official records. Ray appealed, challenging everything from the victim's age to the assault narrative.
Appellant's Desperate Defenses
Ray's counsel pulled no punches, first attacking the victim's age proof. They argued school records were unreliable without the original entrant's testimony or source verification, claiming no medical age test left room for doubt on her minority—crucial for POCSO applicability. Victim inconsistencies across FIR, Section 164 statement, and court deposition were highlighted as "improvements" undermining credibility. Her prolonged stay with Ray without alarm or escape was painted as voluntary companionship. Medical reports showed no forceful injuries, and intent was dismissed as unproven. Acquittal was demanded.
State's Steadfast Counter
The state countered that exhibited school records, unchallenged effectively, carried presumptive value for age determination. Victim testimony stayed consistent on essentials—enticement and assault—with minor variations natural for a traumatized child. Consent was irrelevant for minors under POCSO, rendering conduct arguments moot. Medical evidence is merely corroborative, not conclusive, especially sans violence. Kidnapping from guardianship was clear, and assault circumstances fit .
Decoding the High Court's Logic
Justice Naithani meticulously dissected the record. School documents, duly exhibited and unrebutted, sufficed for minority under settled law—no perversity in trial findings. POCSO's scheme nullifies minor consent entirely. Victim's core narrative held firm; discrepancies were trivial. No injuries? Common in non-violent acquaintance assaults, not negating reliable testimony. Conduct like silence or no escape varies individually and can't imply voluntariness post-minority proof. stood on removal from guardianship; assault intent covered . Appellate restraint applied absent perversity.
This aligns with media echoes, like reports stressing
"Victim's Failure To Raise Alarm Not Indicative Of Consent"
—a principle now etched in this verdict.
Key Observations Straight from the Bench
-
On age proof
:
"School records... having been exhibited during trial and not effectively discredited... carry due evidentiary value."
-
Consent irrelevance
:
"Once the minority of the victim stands established, the argument... regarding consent or voluntary companionship loses all significance."
-
Testimony credibility
:
"Minor discrepancies are but natural... and do not render the entire case doubtful."
-
Victim conduct
:
"The mere fact that the victim did not raise alarm or attempt escape cannot be construed to mean... she was a consenting party."
-
Medical limits
:
"Medical evidence is corroborative in nature and cannot override the direct testimony of the victim if the same is otherwise reliable."
Verdict Locks In Justice, Sets Precedent
"The appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed."
The trial judgment stands, with concurrent sentences including fines. Ray remains in custody. This ruling fortifies POCSO enforcement: prioritizes child testimony, eases age proof via records, and bars consent defenses for minors. Future cases may cite it to dismiss similar conduct-based doubts, bolstering child protection amid rising assaults.
