SEFTIN RAZA KOSAMBI, PRESENTLY LODGED IN JUDICIAL CUSTODY COLVALE v. STATE OF GOA, THR. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR AND ANR
POCSO Conviction Upheld for Minor Victim; Immateriality of Consent and Adolescent Relationship in Penetrative Sexual Assault Cases involving Statutory Minimum Sentencing.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-GOA:691
Decision Date: 06-04-2026
List of Laws
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012; The Indian Penal Code, 1860; The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; The Constitution of India, 1950
- Facts: On 26.09.2017, the 17-year-old victim left her home in Goa to travel to Kerala to escape parental harassment regarding her relationship with the Appellant. The Appellant insisted on accompanying her. They traveled to Ankola, Karnataka, and stayed at a lodge where the Appellant had physical sexual contact with the victim. Upon a call from her mother regarding her father's attempted suicide, the victim returned to Goa with the Appellant, where they were apprehended. The victim's age was established as 17 years and 4 months at the time of the incident through school and birth records. Medical examination and forensic reports confirmed vaginal penetration and the presence of the Appellant's semen on the victim's swabs and clothing. The Appellant was 19 years old at the time.
- Procedural Posture: The Appellant was convicted by the Special Court, POCSO, Panaji, for offences under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and sentenced to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. He was acquitted of kidnapping under Section 363 of the IPC. The Appellant challenged this conviction and sentence before the High Court of Bombay at Goa.
- Issue: Whether the conviction under Section 376 of the IPC and Section 4 of the POCSO Act can be sustained when the victim was a minor, despite arguments of a consensual romantic relationship and "adolescent exploration".
- Holding: Yes, the conviction and sentence are sustained, and the appeal is dismissed.
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the victim’s status as a "child" under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act was indisputable based on documentary evidence. Under both the POCSO Act and Section 375 of the IPC, the consent of a victim under 18 years of age is legally immaterial. The Court found the victim's testimony regarding sexual intercourse to be credible and strongly corroborated by medical evidence (healed hymenal tears) and forensic evidence (semen detection). The Court distinguished this case from precedents where proceedings were quashed due to marriage or compromise, noting the victim here had no intention to marry the Appellant and suffered significant trauma. Furthermore, the Court held that the statutory minimum sentence of ten years cannot be reduced, as the legislative intent of the POCSO Act must be strictly followed regardless of the "consensual" nature of the adolescent relationship.
🔒 For Members Only