The Supreme Court has used its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to cancel the conviction and 10-year prison sentence of a man convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act after the victim, who later married him, requested that the case be closed so they could continue their life together.
Article 142 gives the Supreme Court the authority to pass any order necessary to ensure “complete justice” in a case. Using these powers, a bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar set aside the man’s conviction and acquitted him, citing the unusual circumstances of the case.
The case involved a relationship that began when the girl was studying in Class 12. The two fell in love, but when the man later refused to marry her, she filed a complaint against him. Since she was a minor at the time of their relationship, he was prosecuted under the POCSO Act, convicted, and sentenced to 10 years in prison.
The relationship took a different turn
After becoming an adult, the woman married another man. However, that marriage ended after her husband learned about her previous relationship. Meanwhile, the convicted man was granted bail after his sentence was suspended.
The two later reconciled, got married, and began living together as husband and wife. In February 2021, the woman submitted an affidavit before the Madras High Court stating that she had settled the matter with the man and that they had been living together peacefully for several years.
She requested the court to set aside his conviction so that they could continue their married life without legal obstacles. However, the High Court declined to grant relief, following which the man approached the Supreme Court.
Victim supports the appeal
During the hearing, the Supreme Court interacted with the woman through a lawyer familiar with Tamil. The woman informed the court that she had received ₹10 lakh from the man, as she had demanded earlier, and that she had no objection to the conviction being quashed.
The court recorded, “It is specifically stated by her that in case conviction of the appellant is set aside, she has no objection.”
The judges also noted that the Tamil Nadu government did not oppose setting aside the conviction in this particular case, though it requested that the order should not be treated as a precedent.
Court says order is unique to this case
Explaining its decision, the bench said, “Therefore, at this stage, without entering into the merits of the case, in the peculiar facts, as narrated above, we deem it appropriate to exercise our plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.”
The court then set aside the conviction and acquitted the man of the POCSO charge. Allowing the appeal, the bench said, “The appellant and the victim are left free to live their life peacefully in society as spouses.”
At the same time, the Supreme Court made it clear that the ruling was based entirely on the special facts of this case, and should not be used as a precedent in other cases. “The present order has been passed in the peculiar facts of the case; therefore, it will not be treated as a precedent for any other purpose,” the bench said.
Since the man’s jail sentence had already been suspended by the High Court in 2019, the Supreme Court also clarified that he would not be required to surrender unless needed in any other case.
Similar case from last year
The latest ruling is not the first time the Supreme Court has used its extraordinary powers under Article 142 in a POCSO-related case involving a consensual relationship that later resulted in marriage.
On 23rd May last year, the apex court decided not to impose a sentence on a man who had been convicted under the POCSO Act after finding that the victim, who later became his wife, did not view the incident as a criminal act and had suffered more because of the legal and social consequences that followed.
While upholding the conviction, a bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan chose not to award any punishment. The court observed, “What troubles is the issue of sentencing. Victim didn’t treat this as a heinous crime. She couldn’t make an informed choice. Society judged her, legal system failed her, family abandoned her. She is trying to save her husband.”
The court further remarked, “The facts of this case are an eye-opener for everyone. It highlights the lacunae in the legal system.”
According to the report of an expert committee appointed by the court, the victim did not consider the relationship to be criminal in nature. The committee found that the trauma she experienced stemmed largely from the aftermath of the case rather than the relationship itself. Referring to the findings, the Supreme Court noted, “The final report concludes that though the incident is seen as a crime in law, the victim did not accept it as one. The committee records that it was not the crime that caused any trauma to the victim, but rather it was the consequence that followed which took a toll on her.”
The court pointed out that the woman was now living with the convicted man as his wife and that they had a child together. It also observed that she had developed a strong emotional bond with her family and was trying to protect it. Explaining why it decided not to impose a sentence, the bench said, “That is the reason we are giving for exercising power under Article 142 not to impose sentence.”
The case had originally reached the Supreme Court after controversial observations made by the Calcutta High Court while acquitting the accused. The apex court later restored the man’s conviction under the POCSO Act but, considering the unique facts of the case and the victim’s wishes, decided not to send him to prison.
