The Madras High Court observed that consensual adolescent relationships often lead to criminal cases under the POCSO Act due to parental pressure. The Court acquitted a young man after finding that the prosecution failed to properly prove the girl’s age.
The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court recently highlighted an important concern regarding the application of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) in cases involving teenage relationships. The Court observed that in many situations where adolescents are involved in consensual relationships, it is often the young boy who ends up facing serious criminal charges and long periods of imprisonment.
The observation was made by Justice N. Mala while hearing a criminal appeal filed by Mahesh, who had been convicted by a Special POCSO Court in Nagercoil. The High Court eventually set aside the conviction after finding serious flaws in the prosecution’s case, particularly regarding proof of the alleged victim’s age.
ALSO READ: POCSO FIR Disclosure: Delhi High Court Stays Proceedings Against BJP Spokesperson
While examining the matter, the Court noted a recurring pattern in such cases where consensual adolescent relationships later turn into criminal cases due to opposition from parents.
“In cases involving consensual relationship between adolescents, it is often the young boy who ultimately bears the consequences. Under parental pressure, the girl may be compelled to marry another person, following which criminal proceedings are initiated against the boy under the POCSO Act, resulting in his prolonged incarceration,”
the Court observed.
The case arose from an incident in March 2018. According to the prosecution, the girl, who was allegedly around 16 years old at the time, had developed a friendship with Mahesh, who was known to her family as a friend of her elder brother.
It was claimed that Mahesh had expressed his love for the girl and proposed marriage during phone conversations. The girl allegedly informed him that her parents were planning to marry her to another person against her wishes.
On March 4, 2018, the girl reportedly left her home early in the morning and met Mahesh. The two then went to the house of Mahesh’s uncle, where they married. The prosecution further alleged that Mahesh had sexual intercourse with the girl several times until April 5, 2018.
The situation came to light after an anonymous call was made to the 1098 Child Helpline. Officials from the District Child Protection Unit later located the couple at the house of Mahesh’s relative. They were subsequently taken to the All Women Police Station in Nagercoil, where a case was registered under the POCSO Act based on the girl’s complaint.
The Special POCSO Court in Nagercoil later convicted Mahesh under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with kidnapping or abducting a woman to compel marriage, and under Section 5(l) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The trial court sentenced him to 20 years of rigorous imprisonment for the POCSO offence and five years of rigorous imprisonment for kidnapping. Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
Mahesh challenged the conviction before the Madras High Court.
While reviewing the appeal, the High Court carefully examined whether the prosecution had properly proved that the girl was a minor at the time of the incident, which is a crucial requirement for invoking the provisions of the POCSO Act.
The prosecution had relied on photocopies of the victim’s birth certificate and transfer certificate to establish her age. However, the High Court found that the original documents were available but had not been produced before the trial court.
The Court emphasised that legal principles require the original document to be produced unless there is a valid reason for relying on secondary evidence.
“It is trite that primary evidence is the rule and secondary evidence an exception,”
the Court said.
Justice Mala explained that under Section 65 of the Evidence Act, secondary evidence such as photocopies can only be accepted when the non-production of the original documents is properly explained.
Since the prosecution had relied only on xerox copies despite admitting that the originals were available, the Court held that the trial court made a serious mistake by accepting them as proof of the victim’s age.
“If Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 are discarded, then the prosecution’s case falls to the ground, since the foundational fact regarding the age of the victim stands unproved,”
the Court observed.
Based on this finding, the High Court set aside the conviction and acquitted Mahesh of all charges. The Court directed that he be released from prison immediately unless he was required in connection with any other case.
The Court further noted that the case appeared to be a typical example where a teenage relationship turned into a criminal case because of disagreement from the girl’s family.
During the hearing, the High Court also referred to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in State of UP v. Anurudha (2026), where the top court had raised concerns about the possible misuse of the POCSO Act in cases involving consensual relationships between adolescents.
In that judgment, the Supreme Court suggested that the government consider introducing a “Romeo-Juliet clause,” which would protect genuine teenage relationships from the strict criminal provisions of the POCSO Act.
Taking note of these concerns, the Madras High Court also emphasised the importance of spreading awareness about the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act.
“This Court is of the opinion that wide publicity to POCSO Act and its stringency, will be helpful in controlling the menace (of POCSO cases being filed in cases involving consensual adolescent relationships), as pointed out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court,”
the High Court said.
The Court directed the Chief Secretary of Tamil Nadu to ensure strict implementation of Section 43 of the POCSO Act, which requires governments to create public awareness about the law and its consequences.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court: Pressing Minor’s Lips Without Sexual Intent Not POCSO Offence
The High Court also asked the State government to take immediate steps to widely publicise the provisions of the Act. It suggested organising awareness programmes in government and private schools and colleges so that students, parents and the general public understand the strict consequences of offences under the law.
Finally, the Court directed the Chief Secretary to submit a status report by June 3, 2026, detailing the steps taken to increase awareness about the POCSO Act.
Advocate K. Karnan appeared for the appellant Mahesh, while Additional Public Prosecutor A. Thiruvadikumar represented the State before the High Court.
Case Title:
Mahesh Vs State of TN
Click Here to Read Our Reports on POCSO
