The Lawxy Times
Calcutta High Court Bars Minor’s Consent as Mitigation in POCSO Conviction
On 27 August 2026 the Calcutta High Court’s Circuit Bench at Port Blair upheld a ten‑year rigorous imprisonment for a 24‑year‑old convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The judgment holds that a minor’s consent cannot be treated as a mitigating factor and limits the “Romeo‑Juliet” exception to age‑matched adolescent relationships. The ruling directly affects defence strategies in child‑sexual‑offence cases and clarifies the scope of statutory presumptions under the Act.
Full News Breakdown
The dispute arose from a conviction for sexual assault of a 17‑year‑10‑month‑old girl; the appellant argued that the victim’s consent and procedural delays should lessen liability, while the State relied on statutory presumptions and victim testimony. The bench rejected the consent argument, affirmed the conviction and the ten‑year sentence, and declined to apply the “Romeo‑Juliet” clause.
Case Name: Rupesh Beck v. The State and Another
Court: Calcutta High Court (Circuit Bench at Port Blair)
Bench: Division Bench – Justice Rajarshi Bharadwaj and Justice Reetobroto Kumar Mitra
Date: 27 August 2026
Statutes Cited: Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act – Sections 5(j)(ii), 5(l), 6, 29
Key Provisions: Section 5 (sexual assault), Section 6 (punishment), Section 29 (statutory presumption)
Primary Legal Issue: Whether a minor’s consent can mitigate liability under the Act and the applicability of the “Romeo‑Juliet” clause
Petitioner Arguments: Victim’s consent, lack of independent complaint, FIR delay, contradictions in statements, victim turned hostile, prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt
Respondent Arguments: Victim and mother’s testimony admissible, doctor’s report confirming relationship, statutory presumption under Sec 29, no rebuttal by appellant
Court's Reasoning: Consent of a minor is not mitigating; statutory presumption operates once foundational facts are proved; appellant made no attempt to rebut; “Romeo‑Juliet” clause limited to similar‑age adolescents
Ratio Decidendi: Minor’s consent cannot mitigate liability under the Act; the “Romeo‑Juliet” exception applies only where parties are of comparable adolescent age
Operative Order: Appeal dismissed, conviction and ten‑year rigorous imprisonment affirmed, records to be transmitted to trial court
Practical Outcome: Conviction stands; no relief under the “Romeo‑Juliet” clause
How Does This Affect You?
Earlier, practitioners could argue that a minor’s alleged consent might reduce the statutory penalty or trigger the adolescent‑relationship exception. The High Court now unequivocally rejects that line of defence except in narrowly defined age‑matched cases. Consequently, the risk of successful mitigation on consent grounds has receded, and the focus shifts to challenging the evidential basis of the statutory presumption.
For Lawyers & Advocates
Re‑evaluation of pending POCSO matters is likely to focus on removing consent‑based mitigation pleas and disputing the factual matrix that triggers Section 29.
Bail and charge‑sheet applications are expected to be amended to expressly state that the “Romeo‑Juliet” provision is inapplicable unless the parties fall within the adolescent‑age bracket defined by the Supreme Court.
The decision is likely to be cited in appellate submissions seeking affirmation of convictions where the defence relies on consent, strengthening the argument for strict liability.
Cross‑examination of victim testimony is no longer essential to defeat the presumption; courts may deem unchallenged victim statements as admissions.
The residual uncertainty surrounding the precise age differential that qualifies for the “Romeo‑Juliet” exception remains, and arguments may focus on any gap beyond a year‑and‑a‑half as outside its scope.
For Law Students
This case illustrates the court’s strict‑liability approach in statutes designed to protect vulnerable groups.
The core doctrinal focus is the interaction between statutory presumptions and the defence of consent.
The decision is particularly relevant for the study of:
Criminal Procedure – evidentiary standards under statutory presumptions
Child Protection Law – scope of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act
Constitutional Law – legislative intent versus common‑law principles of consent
Comparative Criminal Law – treatment of adolescent relationships in different jurisdictions
Judicial Interpretation – limits of the “Romeo‑Juliet” clause
Comparing State of Uttar Pradesh v. Anurudh (2026) and Shri Roshan Lakra v. State (2024) shows how courts calibrate the adolescent‑relationship exception, highlighting the doctrinal tension between protecting minors and avoiding over‑criminalisation of peer relationships.
For Businesses
NGOs and child‑welfare organisations are likely to revise safeguarding policies to state that any sexual contact with a minor triggers liability under the Act, eliminating any “consent” loophole.
Educational institutions are expected to update their codes of conduct to reflect zero‑tolerance for consensual relationships with students and to institute mandatory internal reporting mechanisms compliant with statutory requirements.
Primary health‑care providers are likely to establish a protocol for preserving and promptly forwarding medical reports of minor patients to law‑enforcement agencies, as courts now accept such evidence without cross‑examination.
Key Takeaways
Consent of a minor is no longer a permissible mitigating factor under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
Defence counsel must pivot from consent arguments to disputing the factual foundation of the statutory presumption.
Courts can no longer rely on the “Romeo‑Juliet” clause to reduce punishment unless the parties are of comparable adolescent age.
Monitor the Supreme Court’s scheduled hearing on the scope of the “Romeo‑Juliet” principle in early 2027 for possible refinement.
In‑house counsel should audit child‑protection policies and implement mandatory reporting procedures before the compliance review due in Q1 2027.
