The Punjab and Haryana High Court suspended a 20-year POCSO sentence of a minor boy, noting a small age gap, a delayed FIR, and circumstances indicating consensual teenage intimacy. The order highlights how rigid laws can devastate young boys’ lives before their appeals are even heard.
CHANDIGARH: In an important and sensitive order, the Punjab & Haryana High Court, through Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur, suspended the 20-year sentence awarded to a young boy who was 17 years and 5 months old at the time of the alleged incident.
The Court was hearing his second application seeking a suspension of sentence pending his appeal. The boy had already spent nearly six months in custody after conviction. He was tried as an adult by the Sessions Court, Patiala, even though he was legally a minor at the time of the incident.
The case relates to an FIR registered in March 2023 for an alleged incident that occurred in February 2023. Both the boy and the girl were minors at the relevant time. The trial court convicted the boy under Sections 363 and 366, read with Section 120B of the IPC, and Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act, and awarded him 20 years of rigorous imprisonment, while a co-accused was sentenced to five years.
The convict approached the High Court seeking a suspension of sentence pending his appeal. The State opposed the request. After hearing both sides, the High Court examined the record solely to decide the suspension application, not the final guilt or innocence.
The Court first noted that parity with the co-accused could not be a ground, as the co-accused was awarded a much lesser sentence. However, the Court went on to examine other crucial factors emerging from the record.
Medical examination of the victim showed no fresh injuries. The Court observed that since the alleged physical relationship was said to have happened weeks before the medical examination, the medical findings were of limited help.
The Court also noted that the statutory presumption under POCSO had not been clearly rebutted at this stage, but that, by itself, was not decisive in suspending the sentence.
The Court acknowledged that there were contradictions, credibility issues, and a delay in reporting the incident, which would require detailed examination at the final hearing of the appeal.
A key factor highlighted by the Court was the delay in lodging the FIR. The Court observed that the FIR was registered only after the girl’s maternal uncle allegedly saw her with the accused.
The Court clearly recorded that if this incident had not occurred, “then in all probabilities no complaint would have been made to the police.”
The Court also considered the age gap between the boy and the girl, which was around four years. It noted that the material on record suggested that the relationship, if any, appeared to be consensual in nature, with no allegation of cruelty or force and no injuries to the victim.
In an important observation, the Court stated:
“Probably, neither the boy nor the girl would be aware of the Sovereign’s restrictions before they could go intimate.”
The Court further noted that where the age gap is small, and the circumstances indicate consent, the strict application of the law, without regard to ground realities, may cause serious injustice. The Court observed:
“Thus, when the age gap between the boy and the girl is little, and all other tell-tale signs of coitus point towards consent, the gigantic scale of Justice would sway to strike a balance between the statutes and the ground realities.”
Another significant factor was that the boy was a first-time offender with clean antecedents and had undertaken not to cause any harm to the victim. The Court also took into account that the boy was young and in the formative years of life, and prolonged incarceration would severely affect his future education and skill development.
The High Court also considered the practical reality of long delays in hearing criminal appeals. It noted that the Court has several serious cases pending, and the present appeal was unlikely to be taken up in the near future. The Court observed that prolonged delay itself can become a factor while deciding the suspension of sentence.
Taking all these factors into account, the High Court decided to suspend the sentence pending the appeal, without making any final comment on the merits of the conviction.
The Court ordered that the convict be released on bail, subject to furnishing bail bonds of ₹25,000 with one surety. Strict conditions were imposed, including that he shall not enter the victim’s property, workplace, or residence, or any property, workplace, or residence of the victim’s family. The Court made it clear that this condition was necessary to prevent any discomfort to the victim.
The Court also imposed restrictions on the possession of firearms and directed the surrender of any weapons or arms licence, if held. It clarified that these restrictions were imposed only during the pendency of the appeal.
The suspension of sentence was made conditional. The Court warned that if the convict repeats the offence or commits any serious non-bailable offence, the State would be free to seek cancellation of bail.
Allowing the application, the Court concluded that liberty could not be denied in the peculiar facts of the case, especially when the appeal is not likely to be heard soon. The application for suspension of sentence was accordingly allowed.
Explanatory Table: Laws And Sections Involved
| Law & Section | Purpose | How Applied in This Case |
| Section 363 IPC | Applied due to the allegation of takina g girl for a sexual relationship | Punishes the kidnapping of a minor from lawful guardianship |
| Section 366 IPC | Punishes abduction for marriage or illicit intercourse | Considered in the context of the severity of the charge |
| Section 120B IPC | Punishes criminal conspiracy | Applied due to the allegation of taking a girl for a sexual relationship |
| Section 4(2) POCSO Act | Court note: The presumption operates unless rebutted | Punishment for penetrative sexual assault on a minor |
| Section 3 POCSO Act | Defines penetrative sexual assault | Allegation that a minor girl was taken away from family |
| Section 5 POCSO Act | Defines aggravated penetrative sexual assault | Relevant to determine the nature of the alleged act |
| Section 29 POCSO Act | Basis for 20-year sentence awarded to the accused | Raises presumption of guilt against the accused |
| Section 2(d) POCSO Act | Defines “child” as below 18 years | Accused is also a legal minor |
| Section 2(12) JJ Act 2015 | Defines “child” as below 18 years | The court held that the observed consent of the minor was legally invalid |
| Section 2(33) JJ Act 2015 | Defines heinous offences (7+ years punishment) | Offence treated as heinous due to 20-year sentence |
| Section 15 JJ Act 2015 | Allows preliminary assessment to try 16–18 year olds as adults | Victim legally treated as a child |
| Defines statutoran y rape | Used because the co-accused was alleged to have conspired | Accused tried as adult despite being a minor |
| Section 430 BNSS, 2023 | Allows suspension of sentence during appeal | Used for filing a suspension application in the High Court |
| Indian Arms Act, 1959 | Regulates possession of firearms | Defines heinous offences (7+ years’ punishment) |
Case Details
- Case Title: ABC Vs XYZ
- Case No.: CRM-49385-2025 in CRA-D-1489-2025
- Court: High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
- Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anoop Chitkara & Hon’ble Ms. Justice Sukhvinder Kaur
- Dates:
- Order Reserved On: 20.01.2026
- Order Pronounced On: 05.02.2026
- FIR Details:
- FIR No.: 47
- Date: 20.03.2023
- Police Station: Sadar Samana
- Sections Invoked: 363/366 IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act
- Counsels:
- For the Applicant-Appellant: Ms. Anju Rani, Advocate
- For the State: Ms Pooja Nayar Sharma, DAG, Punjab
Key Takeaways
- When both individuals are minors or close in age, the law often ignores real-life relationships and treats young boys as hardened criminals, causing lifelong damage.
- Delays in complaints and family-driven reactions frequently turn personal relationships into criminal cases, with the boy becoming the easiest target.
- Consent is completely erased from legal consideration once age is involved, even when circumstances show mutual involvement and absence of force.
- Young boys are pushed into the adult criminal justice system, losing education, career opportunities, and mental health support at a formative age.
- There is an urgent need for age-gap protection and gender-neutral reform so youthful relationships are not blindly criminalised under extreme punishments.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.