Court Highlights Social Realities Impacting Strict POCSO Application and Urges Law Commission to Recommend Amendments for Sentencing Discretion in Exceptional Cases
In a significant judgment delivered on October 5, 2026, the Allahabad High Court (Division Bench comprising Justices Atul Sreedharan and Achal Sachdev) allowed a habeas corpus petition filed by Rakesh Yadav @ Pappu and another, concerning the custodial status of the alleged minor prosecutrix in a pending Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) case.
The case arose when petitioner No.1, accused under the POCSO Act, sought the production of petitioner No.2, the prosecutrix, who had eloped with him and later gave birth to his child. The State and the prosecutrix's father contended she was a minor, citing her date of birth as July 25, 2010. However, the only documentary evidence available was a transfer certificate from Class V, with no birth certificate issued by a municipal authority or school date of birth certificate produced.
In the absence of primary documents, the Court relied on an ossification test conducted under Section 94(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. This test assessed the prosecutrix's age to be approximately 18 years, indicating that she was a major. Given that she expressed her desire to live with petitioner No.1 as her husband, the Court permitted her to go with him from the Court premises.
The Court underscored the challenges posed by the strict literal application of the POCSO Act in the context of India's social realities, such as illiteracy, poverty, and lack of legal awareness, which often lead to harsh outcomes. The prosecutrix's limited education - only up to Class V with an inability to read a Hindi newspaper - and her father's illiteracy were highlighted as reflections of these realities.
Recognizing the potential for injustice due to these social factors, the Court directed the Law Commission to examine the POCSO Act for suitable amendments. These should consider conferring sentencing discretion on Special Judges in exceptional cases and exploring alternative punishments such as community service. This approach aims to prevent unnecessary disruption of families formed under such circumstances, balancing protection of children with social empathy.
Importantly, the Court clarified that its observations on the facts and age determination in the habeas corpus proceedings would not influence the pending trial under the POCSO Act. The trial court must independently adjudicate the case based solely on evidence presented before it.
This judgment highlights the judiciary's sensitivity to the intersection of law and social conditions, calling for legislative reforms to address the complexities arising from the strict enforcement of child protection laws in India.
Bottom Line:
Habeas corpus - Alleged minor prosecutrix in POCSO case - Determination of age - In absence of school date of birth certificate and birth certificate from local authority, ossification test could be relied upon under Section 94(2), Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Where ossification test assessed corpus to be about 18 years and she expressed desire to live with petitioner-husband, corpus held major and permitted to go with him - Observations made in habeas corpus proceedings not to affect pending POCSO trial - Law Commission requested to examine need for suitable amendments in POCSO Act in light of Indian social realities and sentencing discretion in exceptional cases.
Statutory provision(s):
Article 226, Constitution of India, 1950; Section 94(2), Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012
Rakesh Yadav @ Pappu v. State of U.P., (All)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2995572
