Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Jasmeet Singh held that adolescents should be allowed to engage in romantic and consensual relationships without the fear of criminalization. 

• The Delhi High Court held this in the case of State v. Hitesh (2025). 

What was the Background of State v. Hitesh Case?   

• On 10^th December 2014 at 12:25 AM, a father filed a complaint regarding his missing daughter who was studying in Class 12th. 
• The daughter (prosecutrix) had gone for tuition but did not return home. The father expressed suspicion about a person named Hitesh who was also missing from his house. 
• Two days later both the prosecutrix and Hitesh were found at Dharuhera and brought back to Delhi. 
• The prosecutrix underwent a medical examination and her statement was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). 
• Hitesh (defendant) was arrested and on 6th August 2015, charges were framed against him under Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. 
• The prosecution presented 12 witnesses during the trial. The defendant, in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, claimed innocence and alleged false implication by the prosecutrix and her parents. 
• There was a dispute regarding the prosecutrix's age: 
  • School records showed her date of birth as 20th January 1998. 
  • The prosecutrix and her mother testified that her date of birth as 22nd December 1998. 
  • The school admission was based on an affidavit from her uncle stating the date as January 20, 1998. 
• During her testimony, the prosecutrix stated that she had accompanied Hitesh willingly and any physical relations were consensual. 
• The medical examination report (MLC) showed no injuries indicating resistance to any sexual act. 
• The trial Court applied the principle of benefit of doubt in favor of the accused and acquitted the accused under Section 4 of POCSO Act 
• The same has been appealed before the Delhi High Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Delhi High court applied Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 (JJ Act) for age determination, which requires specific documentary evidence in order of priority: 
  • School/matriculation certificates. 
  • Birth certificates from municipal authorities. 
  • Medical age determination tests. 
• The Delhi High Court applied the principles of age determination as:  
  • Prosecution must conclusively prove victim's minority. 
  • Stringent proof required when alleged age is close to 18. 
  • Benefit of doubt applies when age proof is inconclusive. 
  • Different standards may apply for victims clearly under 14-15 years. 
• The Delhi High Court also considered various evidence for determining the consent as: 
  • Prosecutrix consistently maintained consent in Section 164 CrPC statement. 
  • Court testimony confirmed consensual relations. 
  • Medical examination showed no resistance injuries. 
  • Prosecutrix drove the motorcycle with accused as pillion rider. 
  • She expressed no desire for complaint or action against accused. 
• The Delhi High Court established: 
  • Need for contextual interpretation of age of majority. 
  • Importance of considering victim's maturity and wishes. 
  • Requirement for definitive age proof in POCSO cases. 
  • Balance between protection and personal liberty. 
• The Delhi High Court held that: 
  • Prosecution failed to prove minority beyond reasonable doubt. 
  • The relationship was consensual based on clear evidence. 
  • The trial court judgment was well-reasoned. 
  • Appeal dismissed on merits. 
• This judgment significantly contributes to jurisprudence on handling cases involving relationships between young people where one partner is close to the age of majority. 

What are the Procedures for Determination of Age? 

• Section 94 of the JJ Act states the procedure for determination of age of a person who appears before the Committee or Board, ensuring consistency and fairness in age determination processes as: 
  • Direct Age Assessment: 
    • If a person's physical appearance clearly shows they are a child, the Committee or Board can record this observation with an approximate age. 
    • They can then proceed with their inquiry without waiting for additional age confirmation. 
  • Age Determination Process:  
    • If there is reasonable doubt about whether the person is a child, the Committee or Board must determine age through evidence. 
  • The evidence must be collected in the following strict order of priority:  
    • School date of birth certificate or matriculation certificate from examination board. 
    • Birth certificate from corporation, municipal authority, or panchayat. 
    • Only if above documents are unavailable, medical age determination tests like ossification test. 
  • Medical Test Requirements:  
    • Any medical age determination test must be completed within 15 days from the date it is ordered. 
    • Medical tests can only be ordered if both school records and birth certificates are unavailable. 
  • Legal Status of Age Determination:  
    • Once the Committee or Board records an age, this becomes the legally recognized age of the person for all purposes under this Act. 
  • There is a clear hierarchy of evidence for determining age. 
    • Documentary evidence takes precedence over medical tests. 
    • Physical appearance can be sufficient if the person is clearly a child. 
• The law sets specific timelines for medical age determination. 
• The age determination by the Committee or Board is considered final and binding under the Act.

What are the Landmark Judgements related to it? 

• Court On Its Own Motion (Lajja Devi) v. State (Delhi), (2012): 
  • The Court in this case determined the following principles in this case: 
    • The courts must give appropriate weight to the statements of girls above 16 years regarding their consent in relationship matters. 
    • Assessment of maturity should not be based solely on age but must consider the overall understanding and development of the individual. 
    • Courts cannot apply a uniform formula to all cases and must evaluate each situation based on its unique circumstances. 
    • The personal liberty of the girl must be given paramount importance while making any decisions affecting her life. 
    • Courts must recognize and consider social realities like inter-religious and inter-caste relationships while making decisions. 
    • Special homes should not become places of detention, and the freedom of mature minors should not be unduly restricted. 
    • The voice and wishes of mature minors must be respected and given due consideration in legal proceedings.
• Mahesh Kumar v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023): 
  • In this case the court made the following observations as: 
    • Courts must make a clear distinction between exploitative relationships and consensual romantic relationships between young people. 
    • The law should be interpreted compassionately in cases involving genuine romantic relationships between young people. 
    • The emotional maturity of both parties should be considered while evaluating the nature of the relationship. 
    • The absence of coercion or exploitation must be carefully verified through evidence and testimony.
• Rajak Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018): 
  • In this case the court determined the following principles: 
    • Courts must maintain high standards of proof in age determination, especially in cases where the alleged age is close to the legal threshold. 
    • The benefit of doubt should be given to the accused in cases where age proof is not conclusive. 
    • The severe punishments under POCSO Act require careful application and should not be imposed mechanically. 
• Alamelu & Another v. State (2011): 
  • The following observations were made by the court in this case as: 
    • Age determination must follow a clear hierarchy of documentary evidence as prescribed by law. 
    • School records alone are not sufficient to prove age unless supported by other corroborating evidence. 
    • The person who provided the original age information must be examined to establish the authenticity of age-related documents.
• Court on its own motion v. State of NCT of Delhi (2024): 
  • The following principles were highlighted in this case: 
    • Courts must balance the need to protect minors from exploitation while respecting genuine romantic relationships. 
    • Social and cultural contexts must be considered while making decisions in cases involving young relationships. 
    • The right to personal choice and dignity must be protected while ensuring adequate safeguards against exploitation. 
    • Evidence must be carefully scrutinized and verified before reaching conclusions about age or consent. 
    • Procedural guidelines for age determination and consent verification must be strictly followed. 
    • Family dynamics and cultural contexts should be considered while evaluating relationship cases. 
    • Courts must ensure that protection of minors does not lead to injustice or undue harassment in genuine relationship cases.