The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recently observed that young men often end up facing consequences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) when consensual adolescent relationships are criminalised [Mahesh Vs State of TN]

Justice N Mala made the observation while setting aside the conviction of a young man in a POCSO case, noting that such prosecutions frequently arise due to parental opposition to teenage relationships.

“In cases involving consensual relationship between adolescents, it is often the young boy who ultimately bears the consequences. Under parental pressure, the girl may be compelled to marry another person, following which criminal proceedings are initiated against the boy under the POCSO Act, resulting in his prolonged incarceration,” the Court observed.

The Court allowed a criminal appeal filed by one, Mahesh, overturning a June 23, 2025, judgment of a POCSO court at Nagercoil, which had earlier convicted him under Section 366 (kidnapping, abducting or inducing women to compel marriage, etc.) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

The trial court had sentenced him to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment for the POCSO offence and five years of rigorous imprisonment for kidnapping, with both sentences ordered to run concurrently.

According to the prosecution, the victim girl, aged about 16 at the time of the incident in March 2018, had developed an acquaintance with the accused, who was a friend of her elder brother.

The accused allegedly expressed his love for the girl and proposed marriage over the phone. The girl reportedly told him that her parents were planning to get her married to another, against her wishes.

On March 4, 2018, the girl left her home early in the morning and joined the accused. The two then went to the house of the accused’s uncle, where they married.

The prosecution alleged that the accused repeatedly had sexual intercourse with the girl until April 5, 2018.

Following an anonymous call to the 1098 Child Helpline, officials from the District Child Protection Unit located the couple at the house of the accused’s relative and handed them over to the All Women Police Station in Nagercoil. Based on the girl's complaint, a case was registered under the POCSO Act.

While examining the appeal, the High Court found a fundamental flaw in the prosecution's case regarding the proof of the alleged victim’s age, which was crucial for invoking the POCSO Act.

The prosecution relied on xerox copies of the victim’s birth certificate and transfer certificate to establish that she was a minor.

However, the Court noted that the originals of these documents were admittedly available but were not produced before the trial court.

“It is trite that primary evidence is the rule and secondary evidence an exception,” the Court said.

Justice Mala held that secondary evidence cannot be admitted unless the non-production of the original documents is properly explained under Section 65 of the Evidence Act.

Since the prosecution relied solely on photocopies despite the availability of the originals, the Court held that the trial court committed a “fatal error” in accepting them as proof of the victim’s age.

“If Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 are discarded, then the prosecution's case falls to the ground, since the foundational fact regarding the age of the victim stands unproved,” the Court observed.

On this ground, the High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the accused of all charges, directing that he be released from prison unless required in connection with any other case.

The Court added that it was a typical case where a consensual adolescent sexual relationship ended on a discordant note due to parental differences.

The Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in State of UP v. Anurudha (2026), where the top court noted concerns about misuse of the POCSO Act in cases involving consensual adolescent relationships.

The Supreme Court had suggested that the government consider introducing a “Romeo-Juliet clause” to exempt genuine teenage relationships from the rigours of the law.

Taking note of the issue, the High Court directed the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu to ensure the strict implementation of Section 43 of the POCSO Act, which mandates public awareness about the law.

"This Court is of the opinion that wide publicity to POCSO Act and its stringency, will be helpful in controlling the menace (of POCSO cases being filed in cases involving consensual adolescent relationships), as pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court," the High Court said.

The State government was asked to take immediate steps to widely publicise the provisions of the Act and consider conducting awareness camps in government and private schools and colleges to inform students, parents and the public about the stringent consequences of the legislation.

The Chief Secretary has been directed to file a status report by June 3, 2026 on the measures taken.

Advocate K Karnan appeared for the appellant.

Additional Public Prosecutor A Thiruvadikumar represented the State.

[Read Judgment]