The Punjab and Haryana High Court has suspended a 20-year sentence awarded in a minor’s rape case, noting that teenagers entering into relationships are unlikely to be aware of the legal consequences before becoming intimate. The direction came as the court held that the legislature failed to address situations where the age difference between the boy and the girl was marginal, leading to consensual adolescent relationships being prosecuted as rape.The court observed that the law barred a girl below eighteen from legally consenting to sexual intercourse, but made no distinction based on the boy’s age or proximity in age between the two. The Bench said such cases got caught in the statutory juggernaut enacted by the elected representatives and the absence of any close-in-age exception placed the courts in a position where they were required to balance the rigour of the statute with ground realities.The applicant — a child in conflict with law — was about 17 years and five months at the time of the incident. The girl was around 13 years and 10 months. The FIR was lodged in March 2023, even though the alleged sexual relationship was stated to have occurred in February 2023.The applicant, tried as an adult before Patiala Sessions court, was convicted for penetrative sexual assault on a child, kidnapping and other offences punishable under the provisions of the POCSO Act and Sections 363, 366 and 120B of the IPC.The matter was placed before Division Bench of Justice Anoop Chitkara and Justice Sukhvinder Kaur after the accused sought the suspension of sentence. “The question before this court is that when the coitus (sexual intercourse) itself amounts to statutory rape under the POCSO Act, and the judgment prima facie does not totally discredit the prosecution, why should this Court suspend the sentence?” the Judges observed.“The fundamental legal obstacle for the boy is that the girl cannot consent to sexual intercourse unless she is aged eighteen, and even if she gives her consent to have sex, it shall amount to statutory rape… Probably, neither the boy nor the girl would be aware of the sovereign’s restrictions before they could go intimate. Thus, when caught in the statutory juggernaut enacted by the elected representatives, the age gap between the boy and the girl becomes a significant factor that the legislature did not address. 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,” the Bench observed.The Bench asserted that the alleged act fell within the definition of statutory rape under the POCSO Act, where consent of a minor was legally irrelevant. But the Bench pointed to circumstances that, taken together, warranted sentence suspension during the appeal’s pendency.The court observed that the FIR was lodged in March 2023, while the alleged act purportedly took place in February 2023. The complaint surfaced only after the victim’s maternal uncle allegedly noticed the girl with the accused.“She chose not to report until her maternal uncle noticed the victim going with the applicant and the co-accused. After that, they dropped off the victim near her house, and there are allegations of some ruckus. It means if the victim’s uncle had not spotted her along with the applicant, in all probabilities no complaint would have been made to the police. FIR was registered much later in March, after the accused and the girl were caught together by her maternal uncle,” the Bench observed.The court further observed an analysis of the allegations indicated that the coitus, if any, was consensual. Factors such cruelty during the act and the absence of injuries on the victim were required to be appreciated.The court also took into account that the applicant was a first-time offender with clean antecedents and had undertaken to stay away from the victim. It observed that the applicant was a young boy in the formative years of skill development and that continued incarceration could irreversibly affect his prospects of education and rehabilitation. “On all these counts alone, the applicant is entitled to suspension of his sentence,” the Bench held.