CHILD RIGHTS IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM: NEED FOR LAW REFORM be reduced from 18 years to 16 years. In some cases, the courts have quashed the FIRs against the minor accused. In the case of Sabari v. Inspector of Police (2018), the Madras High Court has said in passing, or as obiter dicta, that consensual sexual activity between minors above the age of 16 years of age should not be considered to be a criminal activity. Since it was said as obiter dicta, it cannot be enforced as law, but it has persuasive value for future judicial and legislative decisions. The Court considered this a logical conclusion from a consideration of ground realities and post-modern moralities of this decade. The High Court had suggested as an obiter dicta that the definition of ‘Child’ under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act can be redefined as 16 instead of 18. Any consensual sex after the age of 16 or bodily contact or allied acts can be excluded from the rigorous provisions of the POCSO Act. Such sexual assault, if it is so defined, can be tried under a new provision. This was said in passing, or as obiter dicta54 by the High Court, and does not construe as the law before passing of the appropriate Amendment to POCSO. Recently, in Bande Rama v. the State of Karnataka,55 the Karnataka High Court struck down criminal proceedings for rape, kidnapping, and penetrative and aggravating penetrative sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act, 2012. In the present case, the father of the prosecutrix had registered a missing complaint of her back in 2019, alleging offences punishable under Section 363 (kidnapping) of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The accused was remanded to judicial custody and a charge sheet was filed against him. About a year after the alleged incident, the prosecutrix attained the age of 18 years. In June 2020, the prosecutrix filed an affidavit that the petitioner and the prosecutrix were involved in a consensual relationship and that she had married the defendant after turning 18. A child born to the couple after their marriage was legally recognised.56 After the said evidence, the petitioner accused was granted bail. 54 55 56 A judge’s expression of opinion uttered in court or in a written judgement, but not essential to the decision and, therefore, not legally binding as a precedent. Criminal Petition no. 6214 of 2022. Criminal Petition no. 6214 of 2022 between: Rama @ Bande …and: State of Karnataka. And M Nagappa 63