POCSO Case: Trial Courts Can Extend Limitation Period In Appropriate Cases Where Minor Victims Are Unable To File Complaints Within Time: Delhi HC
While agreeing with the counsel for Respondent, the Delhi High Court stated that Section 3(3) of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act deals with the voidability of child marriage and does not extend the period of limitation to file complaints in cases of rape of a minor child who is married.
Noting that Sections 472 and 473 CrPC empower the Courts to extend the period of limitation, in the event it is satisfied that the facts and circumstances of the case necessitate an extension of the period of limitation or that the delay has been explained properly, a Division Bench of Justice Manmohan and Justice Saurabh Banerjee observed that "in appropriate cases where minor victims are not able to file their complaints within time, the Trial Court has the power to extend the period of limitation, if it deems appropriate".
Advocate Vikram Srivastava appeared for the Petitioner, whereas CGSC Monika Arora appeared for the Respondent.
In a nutshell, the present petition had been preferred seeking a declaration to the effect that Section 19 read with Section 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) overrides the restrictions imposed under Section 198(1) read with Section 198(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) and if the limitation to file the complaint by a minor victim is extended till she completes two years of attaining majority.
After considering the submissions, the High Court observed that the POCSO Act is a special law that comprehensively deals with heinous crimes of sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children, and before the enactment of this Act in 2012 some sexual offences against children were prosecuted under the IPC.
Consequently, the High Court held that there is no distinct category within child victims of rape as those who are married and those who are not.
Quoting the Latin maxim generalia specialibus non derogant which means that general law yields to special law should they operate in the same field on the same subject, the Bench elucidated that when a general law and a special law dealing with some common aspect are in question, the rule adopted and applied is one of harmonious construction whereby the general law, to the extent dealt with by the special law, is impliedly repealed.
“In any event, Section 42A of the POCSO Act specifically provides that in case of any inconsistency, the provisions of POCSO Act shall have an overriding effect on the provisions of any such other law to the extent of the inconsistency”, added the Bench.
Finally, the Bench concluded that Section 19 read with Section 21 of the POCSO Act shall override the restrictions imposed under Section 198(1) read with Section 198(3) of CrPC.
However, the High Court clarified that it has not dealt with the larger issue of ‘marital rape’ of an adult woman in the present proceedings.
Cause Title: Independent Thought v. Union of India and Anr. [Neutral Citation Number: 2023: DHC: 3085-DB]
Click here to read/download Judgment
