Calcutta HC Upholds POCSO Conviction, Rules Minor Cannot Give Valid Consent, Orders Enhanced Compensation [Read Order]

Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has upheld the conviction of a 23-year-old man for aggravated penetrative sexual assault of a 12-year-old girl, holding that a minor is incapable of giving valid and legally enforceable consent to sexual relations, and that delay in filing complaint is not fatal when the disclosure is truthful, while directing enhanced compensation for the victim.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta, in a judgment dated December 9, 2025, dismissed Criminal Revision Application No. 207 of 2018 challenging the conviction dated March 14, 2018 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, First Court at Sealdah, South 24 Parganas-cum-Special Judge under POCSO Act, 2012 in Special Case No. 12 of 2017.

The appellant had been convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,00,000, of which 90% was to be paid as compensation to the victim under Section 357 CrPC, with one year additional rigorous imprisonment in default.

The prosecution case established that the victim and appellant had been in a relationship for over three years prior to the complaint filed on March 16, 2017. The victim was 15 years and 4 months old at the time of complaint, making her approximately 12 years old when the relationship began. The first act of sexual intercourse occurred in November 2016 at the appellant's house when the victim was about 14 years old, constituting aggravated penetrative sexual assault under Sections 5(j)/(ii) and 5(l) punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

The victim's statement under Section 164 CrPC revealed that the appellant had won her over by buying her food from time to time. After November 2016, he had sexual intercourse with her on multiple occasions. The victim initially protested but acquiesced when the appellant assured her he would marry her. The last assault occurred in February 2017 at a hotel in central Kolkata, after which the victim discovered she was pregnant.

The complaint was filed after the victim informed the appellant about her pregnancy and he ignored her. When she fell sick at home and informed her parents, a home pregnancy test confirmed her condition. The victim subsequently gave birth to a girl child.

Advocate Sabir Ahmed, appearing for the appellant with Ayan Chakraborty, Sohini Mukherjee, and Saikat Mallick, raised multiple grounds challenging the conviction. He argued that the victim's age was not clearly proved, that the DNA report was inconclusive as it stated the appellant “cannot be excluded” as the biological father (rather than positively identifying him), that there was delay in filing the FIR despite the relationship beginning in 2014, and that the investigation was perfunctory with the birth certificate initially marked only for identification.

Government Pleader Rituparna Ghosh and Afreen Begum appeared for the State, while advocate Shounak Mondal represented the victim.
The trial court evidence included PW-1 (the victim herself), whose testimony remained unshaken in cross-examination; PW-2 (victim's father, a rickshaw van puller) who confirmed discovering her condition on March 15, 2017; PW-4 (Dr. Palash Paul) who examined the 15-year-4-month-old victim and found her pregnant; PW-5 (Dr. Sayan Biswas) who examined the 23-year-old appellant and found him potent; PW-6 (victim's mother, a housemaid) who confirmed the home pregnancy test; and PW-10 (Investigating Officer Dulali Das) who seized the birth certificate and other documents collectively marked as Exhibit-7.

On the age determination issue, the court examined Sections 34 of the POCSO Act and 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2016, holding that age needs formal determination only when disputed by the defense. The court cited P. Yuvaprakash v. State (2023 INSC 676), stating, “Wherever the dispute with respect to the age of a person arises in the context of her or him being a victim under the POCSO Act, the courts have to take recourse to the steps indicated in Section 94 of the JJ Act.”

The Bench held, “In the present case, the defense has not disputed the age of the victim. It has been argued for the first time in this appeal that the birth certificate was not properly exhibited. However it is clear from record the Birth Certificate has been lawfully exhibited in course of trial.”

Addressing the DNA report challenge, the court examined the report's language: “(Ex-A) cannot be excluded as the biological father of this female CHILD in focus [Ex-C], deducing that the VICTIM... represented by Ex. B is the biological mother of the CHILD in focus.”

The court held, “The DNA report in the instant case, therefore, has not given a clean chit to the appellant. The expression 'cannot be excluded' clearly indicates that the appellant could very well be the father of the child of the victim. The said DNA report instead corroborates and enhances the reliability of the oral evidence on record.”

Citing Aparna Ajinkya Firodia v. Ajinkya Arun Firodia (2024) 7 SCC 773, the court emphasized that “With the advancement of science, DNA profiling technology which is a tool of forensic science can, in case of disputed paternity of a child by mere comparison of DNA obtained from the body fluid or body tissues of the child with his parents, offer infallible evidence of biological parentage.”

On the evidentiary value of the victim's testimony, the court invoked Section 29 of the POCSO Act, which shifts the burden of proof to the accused once foundational facts are established, stating, “The evidence of the victim in a rape case wields a higher level of sanctity. It does not require any further corroborative evidence to bring home the guilt of the perpetrator.”

The bench held, “In the present case, the victim has been candid and truthful since she stated that she loved the appellant. They shared a friendly and intimate relationship. The same, however, was turned into a sexual relationship at the behest of the appellant, who was a major of 23 years in the relationship.”
Addressing the delay argument, the court extensively relied on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Bhanei Prasad v. State of H.P. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1636), which held that “the testimony of a child victim, if found credible and trustworthy, requires no corroboration” and that delayed disclosure is not fatal if truthful and resulting from trauma.

The Division Bench observed, “The victim was a minor and incapable of giving valid and legally enforceable consent. She still however believed and relied upon the appellant that he would marry her. The complaint was lodged after the victim discovered that she was pregnant and the appellant ignored the victim after being informed as such.”

In a significant pronouncement on the legal incapacity of minors, the court also stated, “A child may not know the consequences of sexual relation. The victim in this case discovered her pregnancy and only then confronted the appellant. Thus, it is inconsequential as to when the complaint was filed in view of the clear evidence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault by the appellant on the victim.”

The court held, “The delay in lodging the complaint was thus based on the love of the victim for the appellant, and further on the hope that the sexual relationship which started on the wrong and illegal side would be regularised by the passage of time and conduct of the appellant.”

On investigative deficiencies, the bench applied established jurisprudence that “even if there are some loopholes in the investigation, the main crux of the offence having been established against the appellant, the same cannot stand in the way of conviction, particularly in respect of the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code.”
While upholding the conviction, the Division Bench took the extraordinary step of enhancing victim compensation, recognizing that the convicted appellant might not pay the fine. The court directed, “Let 90% of the fine of Rs. 2 lakhs i.e. Rs. 1,80,000/- be paid by the State Legal Services Authority (SLSA) within 15 days of receipt of this judgment.”

Additionally, the court ordered, “The SLSA shall pay a further sum of Rs. 2 lakhs to the victim from its own funds,” thereby ensuring the victim receives Rs. 3,80,000 in total compensation regardless of whether the appellant pays his fine.

The judgment directed that enforcement of payments be monitored by the trial court, and ordered the appellant to surrender immediately if on bail to serve the life sentence.

Case Title: S S vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.

[Read Order]