Sajan Bhatt v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, 2025
It strengthens judicial message against attempts to seek indulgence based on personal circumstances post-commission of the offence.
Judgement Details
Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Date of Decision
20 December 2025
Judges
Justice Vivek Agarwal and Justice Ramkumar Choubey
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
- The appellant was convicted in February 2024 by the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Narmadapuram, for committing repeated penetrative sexual assault against a minor.
-
The victim, a minor at the time of the incident in 2023, alleged that the appellant repeatedly assaulted her at his house against her will and threatened her.
-
During the trial, the appellant was on bail, and the victim later married him; a child was born out of this wedlock.
-
The appellant filed a Criminal Appeal seeking indulgence based on the marriage and birth of the child, arguing that other courts had granted relief in similar circumstances, and citing Supreme Court judgments showing indulgence in related cases.
-
The Public Prosecutor argued that the victim’s consent was immaterial since she was a minor at the time of the offence.
Issues
-
Whether the subsequent marriage between the victim and appellant during bail is relevant to reduce or modify punishment under the POCSO Act?
-
Whether the birth of a child from such a marriage can influence the court’s decision on sentence indulgence?
-
Whether consent of the victim, a minor, is relevant in cases under Section 5(l) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act?
Judgement
-
The Division Bench held that subsequent events, such as marriage during bail or the birth of a child, are immaterial to determine indulgence under the POCSO Act.
-
The Court emphasized that the victim was a minor at the time of the incident, making her consent legally irrelevant.
-
It was clarified that while the Supreme Court can grant relief under Article 142, this extraordinary power is not available to the High Court.
-
The Court noted that the appellant’s actions fell squarely within the definition of repeated penetrative sexual assault under Section 5(l).
-
Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the 20-year rigorous imprisonment awarded by the trial court was upheld.
Held
-
Subsequent marriage or birth of child during trial is immaterial for indulgence under POCSO Act.
-
Consent of minor is immaterial in offences under Sections 5(l) and 6.
-
Extraordinary relief under Article 142 is reserved for the Supreme Court.
-
Criminal appeal dismissed; 20-year sentence upheld.
Analysis
-
Reinforces the strict protective intent of the POCSO Act regarding offences against minors.
-
Clarifies that post-offence developments, such as marriage or child birth, cannot dilute legal accountability.
-
Confirms that minor’s consent has no bearing on criminal liability in sexual offences.
-
Distinguishes the powers of High Court versus Supreme Court under Article 142.
-
Strengthens judicial message against attempts to seek indulgence based on personal circumstances post-commission of the offence.