What is the significance of a statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC in POCSO cases?

A statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC carries significant evidentiary weight, especially in cases involving consent and age disputes. In this judgment, the Court relied on Sunita’s statement to establish her voluntary marriage and majority, which weakened the prosecution’s case under POCSO Act. Such statements can be decisive in determining whether the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged offence.

Can a minor’s marriage to an adult be valid if the minor is later found to be major?

Yes. If the minor is found to be major during investigation (e.g., through CWC documents or school records), the marriage may be considered valid, and charges under POCSO Act or Section 366 IPC may not sustain. The Court in this case prioritized Sunita’s consent and majority over the FIR’s allegations.

What is the burden of proof for age in POCSO cases?

The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish that the victim was a minor at the time of the offence. Documentary evidence (e.g., birth certificates, school records, CWC findings) is crucial. In this case, the CWC documents suggesting Sunita’s majority negated the applicability of POCSO Act.

Can parents lawfully detain a child who claims to be major?

No. If a child is found to be major and expresses a desire to live independently, parental detention is unlawful. The Writ of Habeas Corpus can be used to secure the child’s release, as seen in this judgment where the Court allowed Sunita to live with her husband.

Habeas Corpus | Minor’s Consent & Marriage Validity Under POCSO Act: Allahabad HC Rules Age Verification Overrides FIR Charges

The Allahabad High Court recently allowed a habeas corpus petition filed by a woman through her husband, holding that her detention by her parents was unlawful. The judgment underscores the critical distinction between legal majority and chronological age in cases involving allegations under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). The Court’s reliance on the minor’s statement before the Investigating Officer and the Child Welfare Committee raises important questions about consent, marriage validity, and the burden of proof in cases where age is disputed.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, Sunita, through her husband and next friend Sandeep, filed a Writ of Habeas Corpus alleging that she was being unlawfully detained by her parents. Sunita claimed she had married Sandeep on 09.10.2024 and wished to live with him. The dispute arose when Sunita’s parents lodged FIR No. 428 of 2024 at Police Station Laharpur, Sitapur, under Section 366 IPC (kidnapping or abducting a woman to compel her marriage) and POCSO Act, alleging that Sandeep had enticed away Sunita, who was stated to be 15 years old.

Key Facts

09.10.2024: Sunita married Sandeep, as claimed by both parties.
FIR No. 428 of 2024: Lodged by Sunita’s parents, alleging enticement and offences under Section 366 IPC and POCSO Act.
Investigation Findings: Sunita stated before the Investigating Officer that she was 18 years old, had quarreled with her family, and had voluntarily left home to marry Sandeep.
Statement Under Section 164 CrPC: Sunita reiterated her voluntary marriage and cohabitation with Sandeep.
Bail Order: Sandeep was granted bail by the High Court on 07.05.2025 in Bail Application No. 14 of 2025.
Child Welfare Committee (CWC): Documents produced before the CWC indicated Sunita’s date of birth as 05.06.2008, suggesting she was major at the time of marriage.
Court Appearance: Sunita appeared before the High Court along with her mother and categorically stated her desire to live with Sandeep.

Procedural History

FIR Lodged: FIR No. 428 of 2024 registered at Police Station Laharpur, Sitapur.
Investigation: Sunita’s statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC.
Bail Granted: Sandeep granted bail on 07.05.2025.
Habeas Corpus Petition: Filed on July 2026 (exact date not specified) seeking Sunita’s release from parental detention.
Judgment: Petition allowed on 13.07.2026.

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to secure Sunita’s release from her parents’ detention and to allow her to live with her husband, Sandeep, as per her wishes.

The Legal Issue

The central question before the Court was whether a minor’s detention by her parents could be justified under criminal law when:

The minor claims to be major and has married an adult voluntarily.
The Child Welfare Committee’s records suggest the minor is major.
The minor expressly consents to living with her husband and denies any coercion.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

Sunita’s voluntary statement before the Investigating Officer and the Court established her consent to the marriage and cohabitation.
The documents produced before the CWC indicated Sunita’s date of birth as 05.06.2008, making her major at the time of marriage.
The FIR lodged by Sunita’s parents was motivated by a domestic dispute rather than any criminal wrongdoing.
Sandeep’s bail in the criminal case further weakened the prosecution’s claim of coercion or enticement.

For the Respondent

The FIR alleged that Sunita was 15 years old at the time of the incident, bringing the case under the ambit of POCSO Act.
Section 366 IPC criminalizes the abduction or inducement of a woman to compel her marriage, regardless of her subsequent consent.
The burden of proof regarding Sunita’s age lay with the petitioner, and the FIR’s allegations had not been conclusively disproven.

The Court's Analysis

The Court observed that the core issue was whether Sunita was being unlawfully detained by her parents. The Court relied on the following key principles:

Consent of the Minor: The Court noted that Sunita had categorically stated before the Investigating Officer and the Court that she had voluntarily married Sandeep and wished to live with him. This statement was recorded under Section 164 CrPC, which carries significant evidentiary weight.
Age Determination: The Court placed reliance on the documents produced before the CWC, which indicated Sunita’s date of birth as 05.06.2008. This suggested that Sunita was major at the time of her marriage, thereby negating the applicability of POCSO Act.
Habeas Corpus Jurisprudence: The Court emphasized that the Writ of Habeas Corpus is a sacrosanct remedy to secure the release of a person unlawfully detained. Since Sunita had expressed her desire to live with Sandeep and was found to be major, her detention by her parents was unjustified.
Bail Order: The Court also took note of the fact that Sandeep had already been granted bail, which implied that the criminal case against him was not prima facie strong.

"Sunita has categorically stated before the Court that she has married Sandeep and she wants to go with him. She has been detained by her parents. In these circumstances, the petition is allowed."

The Court did not engage in a detailed analysis of POCSO Act or Section 366 IPC, focusing instead on the immediate relief sought in the habeas corpus petition.

The Verdict

The Court allowed the habeas corpus petition, holding that Sunita was at liberty to live with her husband, Sandeep, as per her wishes. The judgment did not set aside the FIR or quash the criminal proceedings but prioritized Sunita’s autonomy based on her consent and majority status.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Practitioners must emphasize statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC and documents before the CWC to establish a minor’s majority in cases involving disputed age.
Courts are likely to prioritize the minor’s consent if evidence suggests they are major, even if the FIR alleges otherwise.

Habeas Corpus as a Remedy for Parental Detention

Parents cannot lawfully detain a child who is major and expresses a desire to live independently.
The Writ of Habeas Corpus can be an effective remedy in cases where parental authority is misused to restrict a major’s liberty.

Limitations of POCSO in Disputed Age Cases

POCSO Act applies strictly to minors, and its applicability ceases if the victim is found to be major.
Prosecution must prove age beyond reasonable doubt, and documents like school records or CWC findings can be decisive.
Defense Strategy: In cases involving alleged minors, defense counsel should immediately gather age-proof documents and record the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC to challenge the FIR’s allegations.
Prosecution Strategy: Prosecutors must corroborate age claims with medical or documentary evidence to sustain charges under POCSO Act or Section 366 IPC.
Judicial Approach: Courts may avoid adjudicating criminal liability in habeas corpus proceedings, focusing instead on immediate relief based on consent and majority.

Habeas Corpus | Minor’s Consent & Marriage Validity Under POCSO Act: Allahabad HC Rules Age Verification Overrides FIR Charges