In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court quashed a POCSO conviction after the accused married the victim and they had a child, invoking Article 142 to prioritize justice, compassion, and family harmony over strict legal provisions.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: In a ruling reflecting both practicality and compassion, the Supreme Court of India quashed a conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, after the accused married the victim and the couple had a child.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih invoked the extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, asserting that “the law must yield to the cause of justice” in this unique case.
ALSO READ: Supreme Court Refuses to De-Seal New Rajinder Nagar Property Used for Commercial Purposes
Background of the Case
The appellant was earlier convicted under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of 5 and 10 years, respectively. His appeal before the Madras High Court had been dismissed.
However, subsequent developments changed the context of the case. The appellant and the victim solemnized their marriage in May 2021. A report from the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority (TNSLSA) confirmed that the couple was living happily and had been blessed with a male child.
The appellant then approached the Supreme Court seeking the quashing of his conviction to protect his family life and maintain marital harmony.
Court’s Observations
The Apex Court emphasized that criminal law represents the sovereign will of society, but its administration must remain grounded in practical realities and human compassion.
Quoting the judgment, the Bench noted:
“Rendering justice demands a nuanced approach. This Court tailors its decisions to the specifics of each case: with firmness and severity wherever necessary, and with mercy when warranted.”
The Court observed that the offence stemmed from love, not lust, and that the victim herself wished to live peacefully with her husband. Continuing the prosecution, the Bench held, would only disrupt their family and cause irreparable harm to the victim, their child, and society.
Exercising powers under Article 142, the Supreme Court quashed the appellant’s conviction and sentence. The Court stressed that the purpose of justice is not merely to punish but to restore harmony and rehabilitate lives when appropriate.
The Bench further directed the appellant not to desert his wife and child and to maintain them with dignity for the rest of their lives. It warned that any future failure to do so could attract serious consequences.
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR Prasanna S., Advocates Injila Muslim Zaidi, Prasanna B
Respondent: Senior Advocate V. Krishnamurthy, AOR Sabarish Subramanian, Advocates Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Azka Sheikh Kalia, Jahnavi Taneja, Danish Saifi
Case Title:
K. Kirubakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 679 OF 2024
READ JUDGMENT