STATE NCT OF DELHI Vs. UMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the impugned order dated 25.10.2013 wherein the respondent stood discharged.

(2.) CHARGE -sheet had been filed under Sections 363/376 of the IPC as also Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offices Act, 2012 (in short POCSO Act'). At the stage of hearing arguments on charges, the Court noting the evidence collected by the prosecution, noting the version of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 & 164 of the Cr.PC had noted that not even a prima -facie case is made out against the accused. He accordingly stood discharged. The relevant extract of the impugned order reads herein as under: -

(3.) LEARNED Public Prosecutor points out that there is patent error in this order as the victim was a minor and in this view of the matter, there could have been no consent in the eye of the law. To support this submission, reliance has been placed upon a judgment of the Apex Court reported as : 193 (2012) DLT 619 Court on its own motion (Lajja Devi); Laxmi Devi & Anr; Devender @ Babli Vs. State wherein the Court had noted that the law itself envisages that the consent of a minor cannot be termed as a valid consent.