The Supreme Court on Tuesday (28th October) quashed the conviction and sentence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) of a convict (appellant), who married the victim and has a child with her. The convict was convicted under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act by the trial court. He was granted rigorous imprisonment of five and ten years respectively, and his conviction was upheld by the Madras High Court in September 2021.
However, during the pendency of the case before the High Court, the convict married the victim in May 2021, and the couple now has a child. Subsequently, the convict approached the Supreme Court and invoked the court’s powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, seeking a quashing of the conviction and sentence to avoid disruption of the matrimonial harmony between the parties.
A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih allowed the appeal, stating that the relationship between the convict and the victim (currently his wife) was consensual and that the “crime was not the result of lust but love”. “While considering the offence committed by the appellant punishable under the POCSO Act, we have discerned that the crime was not the result of lust but love. The victim of the crime herself has expressed her desire to live a peaceful and stable family life with the appellant, upon whom she is dependent, without the appellant carrying the indelible mark on his forehead of being an offender,” the Supreme Court noted in its judgment.
While considering the plea of the convict, the Apex Court directed the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority (TNSLSA) to ascertain the well-being of the wife (victim) of the convict. The TNSLSA submitted its report before the court, stating that the couple were leading a happy married life and were blessed with a male child. Besides, the wife submitted an affidavit before the Court informing that she was dependent on the convict and that she wanted to lead a happy, normal, and peaceful life with him and the child born in their wedlock. The court also took the opinion of the victim’s father, who was the original complainant in the case. The father did not object to the conviction of the convict being quashed.
Court tailors its decision to the specifics of each case: SC
Acknowledging that a crime is considered a wrong against the entire society, the Supreme Court said that the application of criminal law also takes into account the facts and circumstances of a case and the realities of society. “We are conscious of the fact that a crime is not merely a wrong against an individual but against society as a whole. When an offence is committed, it wounds the collective conscience of the society and therefore the society, acting through its elected lawmakers, determines what would be the punishment for such an offence and how an offender should be dealt with, to deter its recurrence,” the court observed.
“The criminal law is, thus, a manifestation of the sovereign will of the society. However, the administration of such a law is not divorced from the practical realities. Rendering justice demands a nuanced approach. This Court tailors its decisions to the specifics of each case: with firmness and severity wherever necessary, and it is merciful when warranted. It is also in the best interest of society to bring a dispute to an end, wherever possible,” the court added.
Court quashed the conviction of the convict by imposed a condition
The court said that it adopted a balanced approach after taking notice of the fact that the victim and the convict were married and leading a normal married life. “Even the most serious offenders of the law do receive justice moderated by compassion from the courts, albeit in appropriate cases. Given the peculiar facts and circumstances here, a balanced approach combining practicality and empathy is necessary. The appellant and the victim are not only legally married, they are also in their family way,” the court pointed out.
However, the Supreme Court attached a condition to its order of quashing the conviction and sentence of the convict to protect the interests of the wife and the child. The court directed the convict not to desert his wife and to maintain her and the child throughout their lives. “Also, bearing in mind the interests of the appellant’s wife and child, we deem it appropriate to subject the appellant to the specific condition of not deserting his wife and child and also to maintain them for the rest of their life with dignity. If, in future, there is any default on the appellant’s part and the same is brought to the notice of this Court by his wife or their child or the complainant, the consequences may not be too palatable for the appellant,” the Supreme Court directed.
