Summary
The Court held that POCSO’s definition of a child below eighteen refers to biological or chronological age, not an adult’s assessed mental age. Both opinions rejected enlarging that clear boundary by interpretation. After the accused’s death, the Court directed maximum compensation under the Delhi victim-compensation scheme on the case’s special facts. This headnote covers those reviewed conclusions and relief.
Issues
- Whether an adult with intellectual disability could be treated as a child under POCSO by reference to mental age.
- What compensation relief remained appropriate after the accused died.
Provisions considered
- Section 357A, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Provides the victim-compensation framework used for the special compensation direction. (¶ Misra J., 88)
Held
- Misra J. concluded that the statutory age boundary was deliberate and could not be expanded by adding mental age through purposive construction. Protection and fair treatment of persons with disabilities did not permit rewriting the definition. (¶ Misra J., 82–87)
- Nariman J. concurred in the conclusion and directions. The Act’s scheme addressed children physically below eighteen; comparison with other protective legislation reinforced the distinction between children and adults with disabilities. Beneficial construction could not cross into legislative alteration. (¶ Nariman J., 36–42)
- Given the accused’s death, the medical certification and prolonged proceedings, Misra J. directed Delhi’s State Legal Services Authority to award the scheme’s maximum compensation without a further inquiry on these special facts. The order specified no numerical amount. (¶ Misra J., 88–89)
Result
Appeals disposed of; mental-age expansion of the POCSO child definition rejected. Delhi State Legal Services Authority directed to award maximum compensation under the applicable Delhi scheme on the special facts.