India's children are its future generation, so they are protected by a multitude of laws, either legally or implicitly. The primary goal of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, 2012 (POCSO) is to protect minors from all forms of sexual abuse and offenses. Child sexual abuse cases were handled under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, prior to the POCSO Act, 2012.

In the case of Vijayalakshmi and Others v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police and Others 2021, the POCSO Act dealt with the significant issue of "Punishing an adolescent boy who enters into a relationship with a minor girl by treating him as an offender, was never the objective of the Act."

The accused and the victim in this case separated having an intimate relationship; the court granted bail to the accused in accordance with Section 482 of Cr. P. C. The author has attempted to reach a just resolution to the previously mentioned issue with the aid of other legal precedents as well as an examination of the POCSO Act, 2012.

Introduction
The goal of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, 2012, also known as the "POCSO Act, 2012," is to shield minors from all forms of sexual abuse. Despite the United Nations adopting the Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1989, India did not enact any legislation to address crimes against children until 2012. It imposes severe penalties on those who commit crimes against minors, with the death penalty being the most severe punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault. Minimum sentences are 20 years in jail.

Need Of The Pocso Act, 2012

The Goa's Children's Act, 2003 and Rules, 2004 were the only laws in India that attempted to safeguard children's rights prior to the coming into force of the POCSO Act, 2012. Child sexual abuse was considered an offense under Sections 375, 354 and 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. These clauses do not shield male youngsters from sexual abuse or preserve their dignity.

It was essential to create a statute that specifically addresses the issue of the rising number of child sexual abuse cases in the nation because there was no prior legislation in this area. The POCSO Act, 2012 was put into effect on November 14, 2012, thanks to the work of numerous NGOs, organizations, and the Ministry of Women and Child Development.

Scope Of The POCSO Act, 2012

The POCSO Act, 2012 does not constitute the only law in India that addresses allegations of child sexual abuse. The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Juvenile Justice Act, and Information Technology Act, 2000 intersect and include the procedure and describe the offences, therefore the POCSO Act cannot be considered a full code in and of itself.

Applicability Of The POCSO Act, 2012

The POCSO Act of 2012 has 48 sections. Although it was published in the official gazette on June 20, 2012, it didn't go into effect until November 14, 2012, which begs the question of whether cases filed before then can still use it. In the 2016 case of M. Loganathan v. State, the accused was found guilty of rape under Section 4 of the POCSO Act, even though the crime was committed on September 28, 2012, before the Act's implementation.

As a result, the conviction was changed to be punished under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 when the High Court of Madras ruled that it violated Article 20(1) of the Indian Constitution of 1950.

In the other Kanha v. State of Maharashtra (2017) case, the accused was found guilty of violent penetrative sexual assault against the victim, which led to her pregnancy, in accordance with Sections 6 of the POCSO Act and 376 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused argued that he could not be prosecuted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act because the date of the offense was not close to November 14, 2012, unless there was evidence of the age of the unborn child.

The Bombay High Court heard the case and cleared the defendant of all allegations. As a result, it is clear that the courts either overturn the accused's conviction or clear them when the POCSO Act's applicability is questioned.

The Act specifies the penalty in cases when offenses against minors are committed. The term "child" is defined in POCSO Act Section 2(1)(d). "A child means any person below the age of 18," according to the statement. This suggests that offenses committed against individuals under the age of eighteen are subject to penalties under the POCSO Act.

Overview Of The POCSO, Act 2012

The POCSO Act, 2012 is a comprehensive law that includes offenses, penalties, and procedures in 9 chapters.

Sexual Assault Of Children

Penetrative sexual assault is defined in Section 3 of the POCSO Act, and Section 4 of the Act lays out the punishment, which was strengthened by the 2019 amendment. In the 2017 case of Bandu v. The State of Maharashtra, a person was charged with penetrating sexual assault under Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act and with violating certain provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, after the victim, a 10-year-old girl, suffered from physical and mental disabilities.

In the 2015 case of Pranil Gupta v. State of Sikkim, the 15-year-old victim resided with the accused, and injuries had been found in her genital region. The accused's claim that she was raped five times in one night after she undressed was accepted by the High Court. The perpetrator was charged under Section 3 of the POCSO Act after his claim that he was unaware the victim was a minor was rejected.

Sex Assault That Is More Severe And Pervasive

The facts under which penetrative sexual assault qualifies as a serious sexual assault are laid out in Section 5 of the POCSO Act. For instance, penetrative sexual assaults on minors committed by law enforcement officers near a police station, by members of the armed forces operating within their jurisdiction, by public servants, or by employees of jails, hospitals, or educational institutions are classified as aggravating penetrative sexual assaults and are subject to penalties under Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

Sexual Assault

According to Section 7 of the POCSO Act, sexual assault is defined as "any act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration, or any person who, with sexual intent, touches the vagina, penis, anus, or breast of the child or makes the child touch the vagina, penis, anus, or breast of such person or any other person."

After the victim underwent a medical examination, it was determined in Subhankar Sarkar v. State of West Bengal (2015) that there was no proof of a penetrating sexual assault; however, scratch marks on the victim's body were discovered, which demonstrated the use of force. As a result, the accused was found guilty under Sections 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act.

Sexual Assault With Aggravation

The POCSO Act has laws pertaining to sexual assault with aggravation on minors in sections 9 and 10. In the 2017 case of Sofyan v. State, the Trial Court found the accused, a plant manager in the swimming pool area, guilty of sexually abusing an 8-year-old girl in violation of Section 10 of the POCSO and Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

According to the case's facts, the accused approached the victim while she was in the changing room, put his hand inside her swimsuit, and made sexually suggestive contact with her. The Delhi High Court dismissed the accused's claim that he was wrongfully accused, and the court's decision was upheld

Sexual Harassment

The POCSO Act's Section 11 defines sexual harassment. There are six incidents in all that include juvenile sexual harassment. In the first place, if someone speaks to a child in a sexually suggestive manner or shows them an object, secondly if a someone forces a youngster to display his body in a way that the perpetrator or others can view. Third, if someone shows any kind of material to children for obscene motives.

Fourthly, if a child is being watched or stalked by someone else either in person or online. Fifth, if someone makes a threat to use an authentic or Photoshopped image of a child's body or depicts the youngster participating in a sexual act on film, television, or other media.

Pornography

According to Section 13 of the POCSO Act, anyone who uses a child for pornographic purposes-either by showing the child's sexual organs, using the child in actual or simulated sexual acts, or using the child sexually or crudely in television or online advertisements-commits this offense and faces penalties under Sections 14 and 15 of the POCSO Act.

The mother in Fatima A.S. v. State of Kerala (2020) claimed that her two small children had painted her nude body above her navel in a social media video, with the intention of teaching them about sex education. In this case, the Indian Supreme Court noted that a child's early experiences with their mother will always have a lasting impact on their mentality. The mother is often described as the child's "window to the outside world." Thus, it was addressed in Section 13.

Doli Incapax is a Latin word used to refer to a child's incapacity to develop criminal intent. Children under the age of 7 are regarded as Doli Incapax, and those between the ages of 7 and 12 are exempt from criminal prosecution if it can be demonstrated that they are incapable of developing a criminal purpose due to specific circumstances.

At the very least, children over the age of 12 should be given the opportunity to demonstrate their sincerity when it comes to their love relationships, provided they are not young enough to form criminal intent or participate in any criminal conspiracy. "Treating an adolescent boy who dates a minor girl as an offender and punishing him accordingly was never the intention of the POCSO Act,"

The Madras High Court noted in a recent ruling in the matter of Vijayalakshmi and Others v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police and Others (2021). The verdict rendered by Justice N. Anand Venkatesh was grounded in scientific and rational reasoning regarding the experiences and emotions of teenagers during their adolescence and its applicability to the current case. In this particular situation, a young girl who had been in a relationship with an adolescent boy for a long time eloped with him.

The De facto complainant and the victim girl filed a petition to quash the criminal proceedings against the boy, who is accused under sections 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and 9 of the Prohibition of the Child Marriage Act, 2006, citing that the proceedings are causing them mental anguish and preventing the victim's family.

"Whether the court can quash the criminal proceedings involving non-compoundable offenses pending against the respondent" was the main issue in this case. In the cases of Parbat Bhai vs the State of Gujrat (2017) and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Dhruv Gurjar (2019), the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed a similar issue and provided plenty direction that the Court must follow when applying its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. to revoke non-compoundable offenses.

One crucial standard that has been established states that the court must determine whether the offense under consideration is one of pure individual intent or one of social crime with a strong public interest. According to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, crimes against society that have a greater public interest than anything else, even if the parties resolve their differences,

Importance Of The POCSO Act, 2012

1. The POCSO Act of 2012 was passed in response to an increase in child sexual abuse cases. It lays out the process for putting these laws into effect and includes clauses protecting minors from sexual assault and pornography.
    
2. There have been cases of child sexual assault at schools, churches, parks, hostels, and other locations, and nowhere is a place where children's safety is guaranteed. It was important to develop separate legislation that might offer a dependable system for reducing the number of such offenses and punishing the offenders due to the increasing challenges.
    
3. The Act has been crucial in highlighting the importance of children's rights and protection as well as offering victims of sexual abuse a strong legal system. As a result of increased awareness, the number of child sexual abuse instances reported has also increased. Both non-penetrative and violent penetrative sexual assault are punishable under the Act.

Punishment For Offence Laid Down Under POSCO Act, 2012

To protect children from sexual offenses and serve as a deterrence, the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act, 2012 imposes severe penalties for a number of offenses. Here are a few significant penalties under the Act:

1. Penetrative sexual assault carries a minimum sentence of seven years in jail and a maximum sentence of life in prison, Fine.
2. When someone in a position of trust or authority, like a police officer, teacher, or family member, commits a severe penetrative sexual assault, the minimum sentence is 10 years in prison, with the possibility of a life sentence, Fine.
3. For sexual assault, there is a three-year minimum sentence and a five-year maximum, Fine.
4. For aggravated sexual assault, there is a five-year minimum sentence and a seven-year maximum, Fine. Sentence of up to three years in jail for sexual harassment, Fine.
5. Using a child for pornographic purposes carries a maximum five-year prison sentence as well as a fine for the first offense.
6. Penalties for repeat offenses include fines and a maximum 7-year jail sentence. Up to three years in prison for the storage of child-related pornographic material. The severity of the penalties reflects how seriously offenses against minors are regarded by the law.

Analysis Of The Act And Other Precedents

To protect children from offenses of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and pornography and provide for the establishment of Special Courts for trial of such offenses and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto" is the primary goal of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. It is evident from this that the Act's goal is to safeguard children rather than to punish juvenile criminals.

The Juvenile Justice Act designates juvenile offenders as such because, below a particular age, they are deemed too immature to comprehend the seriousness of their crimes and are therefore sent to detention homes rather than prisons. The state of mind of the minors should be considered when handling a situation, as was the case in Vijayalakshmi and Others v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police and Others.

The Act is gender neutral. In Erickson Lyngdoh v. State of Meghalaya 2020, the court addressed a case involving teenagers who had separated and married, leading to the conception of a child inside the girl's womb. The court concluded that, under exception 2 to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, having sex with one's lawful wife after the age of 15 is not illegal. The ruling just clarifies that a girl is not always the victim in a separating case; it does not support underage relationships or child weddings. Furthermore, as every case has unique facts and circumstances, these laws must be positively applied.

However, the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 aims to outlaw child marriage in order to protect innocent people's futures from being destroyed. A complaint was brought by the families of the two juveniles who, after falling in love, eloped and married in accordance with Hindu rites and ceremonies in the case of Court on its Motion (Lajja Devi) And Others. V. State & Others (2012). In this case, the court decided that a marriage that violates Clause (3) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act is not automatically void, but rather may become void if any of the conditions listed in Section 12 of the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 are met.

Indian courts do not provide an exception for minor marriages because they view marriage as a sacrament that needs to be preserved. In some situations, such as when a family opposes a child marrying, when a minor has sexual relations with an adolescent and becomes pregnant, or when a juvenile is about to become an adult, the courts will permit such marriage ceremonies after giving the relevant facts and evidence careful thought.

The accused boy in that previous instance was charged of violating sections 366 of the IPC, 1860, 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, and 9 of the PCM Act, 2006. Punishing a teenage boy for aggravated penetrative sexual assault, kidnapping, or forcing a lady into marriage, or for a male adult marrying a minor would be against the very intent of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. He had no idea what charges he might face for simply falling in a relationship with a minor girl when he went on an affair with her.

Conclusion:
Since they are considered insecure, children need their parents or guardians to provide them with protection and supervision. The goal of the many laws passed to safeguard children may vary depending on the legislation's subject, but the laws' overall purpose always stays the same.

A boy who approaches a girl in good faith is not breaking the law because the Indian Constitution (Article 21) protects the right to life and personal liberty; nevertheless, a girl who is underage is not deemed old enough to freely offer her assent. In certain cases, it is impossible to place full blame on anyone, and the court's decision is always based on the specific facts, circumstances, and available evidence.

Although they lack real-world experience, adolescent is highly aware of what they are doing. The development of a teenager's mind is greatly influenced by psychological variables, which the court must constantly keep in mind. In this instance, the Madras High Court correctly noted that the POCSO Act was never intended to punish an adolescent boy who dates a young girl by treating him like an offender.

Under the POCSO Act, 2012, a "Sensitive Issues Committee" shall be established to investigate the psychological reasons underlying the commission of crimes, as was the case in Vijayalakshmi and Others v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police and Another 2021. The committee would then, if needed, create an objective report that understood both parties and took into consideration their state of mind at that specific moment and present it to the court.