XXX Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the accused in Crime No.2635/2021 of Vellarada Police Station, Thiruvananthapuram District alleging commission of offences under Ss. 450, 403, 363, 376 (2) (n) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 4 read with 3 (a) and Section 6 read with 5 (l) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The allegation against the petitioner who is 19 years of age is that in the month of January 2021 he committed preventative sexual assault on the victim girl aged 16 years. It is also alleged that pretending to be in love with the victim, the petitioner had procured some of her gold ornaments and thereby the petitioner committed the offences alleged against him.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner and the victim girl were in love with each other. It is submitted that the petitioner has been in custody from 17-10-2021 and that as on date he has completed 59 days of custody. It is submitted that the complaint was given only after the victim suspected that the petitioner was in some other relationship. It is also submitted that the investigation in the matter is almost completed and further detention of the petitioner is not necessary for the purpose of investigation.

(3.) Heard the learned Public Prosecutor also. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the question of a consensual relationship between the petitioner and the victim girl does not arise in the facts and circumstances of the case since the victim is admittedly a minor. It is submitted that the petitioner had committed the offence under the pretense of being in love with the victim girl and there is also an allegation that the petitioner had promised to marry the victim girl after the petitioner and the victim girl attains the age necessary for a valid marriage. It is submitted that thereafter the petitioner withdrew from that promise and thereby he clearly committed the offence as defined in Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code read with relevant provisions of the POCSO Act. It is also submitted that the petitioner had also taken away some gold ornaments of the the victim for his own purposes.