THE WORD ‘AGE’ IN POCSO ACT DOES NOT
INCLUDE MENTAL AGE
Ms. Eera; through Dr. Manjula Krippendorf v.
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and Others
AIR 2017 SC 3457: 2017 (8) SCALE 112:
2018 Cri LJ 186: 2017 (15) SCC 133
Decided on: 21-07-2017
Hon’ble Judges: Dipak Mishra and R.E Nariman JJ.
Facts: Parliament felt it appropriate that the definition of the term “age” by chronological age or biological age to be the safest yardstick than referring to a person having mental retardation. Parliament has not included mental age. It is within the domain of legislative wisdom. Procedure for determination of age has been provided under rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2000.
Issue: Whether the word Age in Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act includes mental age?
Held: Section 2(12) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 defines “child” to mean a person who has not completed the eighteen years. Purpose of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act is to treat the minors as a class by itself and treat them separately so that no offence is committed against them as regards sexual assault, sexual harassment and sexual abuse. The sanguine purpose is to safeguard the interest and well-being of the children at every stage of judicial proceeding. On a reading of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, it is clear to us that it is gender neutral. In such a situation, to include the perception of mental competence of a victim or mental retardation as a factor will, really tantamount to causing violence to the legislation by incorporating a certain words to the definition. By saying “age” would cover “mental age” has the potential to create immense anomalous situations without there being any guidelines or statutory provisions.
