The Madras High Court has granted interim relief to a convicted accused under the POCSO Act by suspending his ten-year sentence, recognizing the applicability of the Romeo-Juliet clause in cases of consensual adolescent relationships. This order underscores the judiciary’s evolving approach to balancing statutory rigour with equitable considerations in cases involving minors and adults in genuine romantic relationships.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Mayakrishnan, was convicted by the Additional POCSO Court, Thoothukudi, in Special Session Case No.17 of 2021 for the offence under Section 3 read with Section 4(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The prosecution alleged that the petitioner, an adult, engaged in sexual intercourse with the victim, a minor, under the false promise of marriage. The trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.3,000, with six months’ additional rigorous imprisonment in default of payment.
Key Facts
- The victim, a minor at the time of the incident, testified that she and the petitioner were in a consensual romantic relationship.
- She admitted that she compelled the petitioner to take her away from her home because her parents were arranging her marriage to another person.
- The victim did not allege force, threat, or deception beyond the promise of marriage.
- The petitioner was arrested and has been in custody since the date of conviction, 13.08.2025.
- The victim has since married another person and is living separately.
- The petitioner’s antecedents were cited by the prosecution, listing 16 prior cases across multiple police stations between 2015 and 2023.
Procedural History
- 20.10.2020: Crime No.372 of 2020 registered at Puthiyamputhur Police Station under POCSO Act.
- 13.08.2025: Trial Court convicted petitioner and sentenced him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment.
- 02.01.2026: Criminal Appeal No.1387 of 2025 admitted by the Madras High Court.
- 09.04.2026: Application under Section 430(1) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita filed for suspension of sentence.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the relationship was consensual and rooted in mutual affection, not exploitation. He emphasized that the victim herself admitted to initiating the relationship and compelling the petitioner to take her away. He contended that the prosecution’s reliance on prior criminal cases was retaliatory, as most were registered either just before or after the POCSO case, suggesting malafide intent by the victim’s father to punish the petitioner. He urged the court to apply the spirit of the Romeo-Juliet clause, which recognizes consensual relationships between adolescents and young adults.
For the Respondent
The State, through the Government Advocate, relied on the petitioner’s history sheet, listing 16 prior cases involving offences under Sections 379, 380, 506, and other IPC provisions. It argued that the petitioner was a habitual offender and that the gravity of the POCSO offence warranted continued incarceration. It also noted that the victim had since married another person, implying the relationship had ended without consequence.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought suspension of his ten-year sentence under Section 430(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, pending disposal of his criminal appeal, and enlargement on bail with appropriate conditions.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the court may suspend a sentence under Section 430(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in a POCSO case involving a consensual relationship between a minor and an adult, where the victim herself acknowledges the relationship as voluntary and motivated by love, and where prior criminal antecedents appear to be temporally linked to the filing of the complaint.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel relied on judicial recognition of the Romeo-Juliet doctrine in cases such as State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Singh and Sahil v. State of Punjab, where courts have held that strict application of POCSO without considering consensual adolescent relationships leads to disproportionate punishment. He argued that the victim’s testimony negated the element of criminal intent or exploitation. He further contended that the prior cases were either disposed of or pending long before the POCSO complaint, and their invocation was an attempt to prejudice the court.
For the Respondent
The State maintained that the POCSO Act is a protective statute designed to shield minors from sexual exploitation, regardless of consent. It argued that the petitioner’s extensive criminal history demonstrated a pattern of predatory behaviour and that suspension of sentence would undermine deterrence. It emphasized that the victim’s subsequent marriage did not negate the seriousness of the offence committed.
The Court's Analysis
The Court acknowledged the mandatory nature of punishment under the POCSO Act but emphasized that the statute does not preclude judicial discretion in granting interim relief under Section 430(1). It noted that the victim’s own testimony, recorded under Section 164 CrPC, established that she initiated the relationship and willingly left with the petitioner due to familial pressure. The Court observed that the prosecution failed to establish coercion, manipulation, or abuse of power.
"This court is inclined to allow this petition, as this is a case of Romeo-Juliet clause. The victim girl has admitted that it is a love affair between the petitioner and her and she only compelled the petitioner to take her along with him."
The Court critically examined the history sheet and found that the majority of the 16 prior cases were registered either immediately before or after the POCSO complaint, suggesting a possible retaliatory motive by the victim’s father. It held that such antecedents, without independent corroboration of criminal propensity in the present matter, could not override the specific facts of this case.
The Court further held that the interests of justice required a balance between the statutory mandate and the unique factual matrix. It concluded that the petitioner’s continued incarceration pending appeal would cause undue hardship, particularly where the appeal raises substantial questions of law and fact regarding the applicability of consent in adolescent relationships.
The Verdict
The petitioner’s application under Section 430(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita was allowed. The substantive sentence of ten years rigorous imprisonment was suspended pending disposal of the criminal appeal. The petitioner was enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions: (i) execution of a personal bond of Rs.1,00,000 with two sureties of like amount; (ii) filing of an affidavit undertaking not to commit any further offence, not to visit the occurrence village, and to appear for appeal proceedings; (iii) residing in Trichy and reporting daily at 10:30 a.m. to the Inspector of Police, Palakarai Police Station; (iv) immediate notification of any change of residence; and (v) cancellation of bail upon violation of any condition. The order was communicated to the Sessions Judge, Additional POCSO Court, Thoothukudi; the Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai; and the concerned police stations.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Consent in Adolescent Relationships May Mitigate Sentencing Harshness
- Practitioners must now argue that consent, when clearly established through victim testimony, can be a material factor in seeking interim relief under Section 430(1), even in POCSO cases.
- Courts may distinguish between exploitative relationships and consensual adolescent love affairs, particularly where the age gap is narrow and the victim is near the age of majority.
Antecedents Must Be Scrutinized for Timing and Motive
- Prior criminal cases registered immediately before or after a POCSO complaint must be examined for possible retaliatory or coercive intent.
- A history sheet alone cannot justify denial of bail if the current allegations are factually contested and supported by the victim’s own account.
Judicial Discretion Under Section 430(1) Is Broad in POCSO Cases
- Suspension of sentence is not automatically barred in POCSO cases; courts retain discretion to grant interim relief where the appeal raises substantial grounds.
- Conditions such as residence restriction, daily reporting, and non-contact orders are viable alternatives to incarceration pending appeal.
