Latest JudgementProtection of Children From Sexual Offence Act, 2012

RK v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2026

The judgment underscores the duty of trial courts and prosecutors to exercise diligence and avoid wrongful convictions.

Madhya Pradesh High Court ·12 January 2026

Protection of Children From Sexual Offence Act, 2012

Court

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Date of Decision

12 January 2026

Judges

Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Ramkumar Choubey

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Facts of the Case

The appellant was convicted by the Special Judge for kidnapping under Section 366 IPC and aggravated sexual assault under Sections 5 and 6 of the POCSO Act.
The victim’s mother lodged a complaint stating her daughter had gone missing on January 31, 2022.
The victim was recovered on April 23, 2022, and her statement was recorded under Section 164 CrPC. She also underwent a medical examination.
During the trial, it was noted that the victim was above 18 years of age based on an X-ray report recommended by the examining doctor. However, this report was neither exhibited by the public prosecutor nor considered by the Special Judge.
The appellant contended that the trial court failed to exercise its powers under Section 311 CrPC to summon material witnesses or examine the victim properly.
The victim and the accused knew each other, had performed a marriage at a temple, and stayed together for two months, during which they had a physical relationship.
The High Court noted that when two adults voluntarily enter a relationship, it cannot constitute an offence under the POCSO Act.

Whether a conviction under the POCSO Act can be sustained if the victim is a consulting adult above 18 years of age?
Whether the Special Judge committed an error by ignoring medical evidence (X-ray report) determining the victim’s age?
Whether the trial court failed in its duty under Section 311 CrPC by not summoning or examining material witnesses relevant to age and consent?
Whether a consensual relationship between two adults can amount to kidnapping or aggravated sexual assault under Sections 366 IPC or POCSO Act?
Whether the Special Judge and Public Prosecutor should be called to explain the lapse in oversight leading to the wrongful conviction of the accused?

The conviction under the POCSO Act and IPC Section 366 was set aside.
Consensual sexual relationships between adults are not offences under POCSO.
Trial court errors, including ignoring medical evidence and failing to summon material witnesses, constitute grave errors.
The Special Judge and Public Prosecutor were directed to explain their lapses.
The criminal appeal filed by the accused was allowed.

The Court reaffirmed that the POCSO Act protects minors, and applying it to adults constitutes a miscarriage of justice.
Emphasis was placed on proper evaluation of evidence, particularly medical reports confirming age.
The judgment underscores the duty of trial courts and prosecutors to exercise diligence and avoid wrongful convictions.
By issuing a show cause notice, the Court highlights accountability in the criminal justice system.
The case clarifies that consent and age verification are critical elements in distinguishing offences under POCSO from consensual adult relationships.