Madras High Court· 11 September 2026

Is the question of consent insignificant once it is established that the victim was a minor?

KURALARASAN v. STATE REP BY

CRL A.473/2022 · 2026:MHC:3758 · CRL A No. 473 of 2022
Coram: Justice G.Arul Murugan

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow s.5(l) Protection of Children fr…📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

Once it is established that the victim was a minor, the question of consent becomes insignificant.

Yes. Once it is established that the victim was a minor, the question of consent becomes insignificant. The date of birth having been established from the school records coupled with the evidence of the Headmistress, the victim was a child within the meaning of the POCSO Act on the dates of occurrence.

Headnote

Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — ss.5(l), 6, 29 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s.366 — Age of the victim — Consent immaterial — Sole testimony of the victim — Delay in lodging the complaint — Statutory presumption — Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — Minor victim — Consent — Held: Once it is established that the victim was a minor, the question of consent becomes insignificant. (¶32) Evidence — Sole testimony of the victim — Held further: The sole testimony of the victim is sufficient to convict an accused where that testimony is of sterling quality and inspires the confidence of the Court. (¶27, 28) Criminal law — Sexual offences — Delay in lodging the complaint — Held further: Mere delay in lodging the complaint in a sexual offence case is not by itself fatal to the prosecution where the delay is properly explained. (¶30) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 — s.29 — Statutory presumption — Held further: The statutory presumption under s.29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 operates once the prosecution establishes the foundational facts. (¶33) Conviction and sentence confirmed; appeal dismissed. (¶34, 35)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 14In order to prove the age of the victim, the admission/withdrawal register of the school was marked as Ex.P8. The Transfer Certificate of PW1, was marked as Ex.P9, and the school certificate issued by the Headmistress of the Government Higher Secondary School, Tittagudi, was marked as Ex.P14. As per the school certificate/Ex.P14, the date of birth of the victim is 30.06.2002, which is supported by Exs.P8 and P9. The Headmistress of the Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Tittagudi, was examined as PW7. She deposed that the victim was admitted in the school in the 6 th Standard and spoke about the date of birth recorded in the school records. From the documents marked as Exs.P8, P9 and P14, coupled with the evidence of PW7, it is established that the date of birth of the victim as 30.06.2002. From the date of birth established from the records, the victim was aged about 15 years on the alleged dates of occurrence in the year 2017 and therefore was a child within the meaning of the POCSO Act.

Paragraph 32Once it is established that PW1 was a minor, the question of consent becomes insignificant. From the evidence of PW1, it is established that the accused forcibly by threatening to commit suicide took her and married with the intention of having sexual intercourse. Accordingly, the charge under Section 366 IPC is established. The fact that the accused was studying in college at the time of occurrence does not advance his case. His conduct in following the victim, who had lost her father at an early age and was working in a store for supporting her family, persuading her to accompany him by threat of committing suicide, taking her away on different occasions and having repeated sexual intercourse on the pretext of marriage, discloses the vulnerability of the victim and the consequences of such conduct on the prospects of a young girl.

Acts & Sections

s.5(l) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012s.6 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012s.29 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012s.366 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.164 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of KURALARASAN v. STATE REP BY — and get the Madras High Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Is the sole testimony of the victim sufficient to convict an accused where that testimony is of sterling quality?Is mere delay in lodging the complaint in a sexual offence case fatal to the prosecution where the delay is properly explained?Does the statutory presumption under s.29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 operate once the foundational facts are established?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections