LawChakra

“Love, Not Lust”: Supreme Court Quashes POCSO Conviction After Victim Marries Accused

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

In a rare move under Article 142, the Supreme Court set aside a man’s POCSO conviction, noting the relationship was driven by “love, not lust.” The court observed the couple is now married with a child and living a peaceful life.

New Delhi: In a rare and extraordinary move, the Supreme Court of India has used its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to deliver “complete justice” by setting aside the conviction and sentence of a man who was earlier found guilty under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih allowed the man’s appeal, noting that the “peculiar facts and circumstances” of the case required a compassionate approach.

The man had previously been sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and five years under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly kidnapping and sexually assaulting a minor girl.

However, the court observed that the situation had changed drastically since the time of conviction. During the pendency of the appeal, the man and the victim—who are now both adults—got married in May 2021 and are now living a “happy married life” with their one-year-old son.

The victim, now the man’s wife, also filed an affidavit expressing her wish to continue living peacefully with her husband and child.

The Bench acknowledged the seriousness of offences under the POCSO Act but said the case required a “nuanced approach.”

The judges remarked,

“We are conscious of the fact that a crime is not merely a wrong against an individual but against society as a whole,” adding that “the administration of criminal law is not divorced from the practical realities. Rendering justice demands a nuanced approach.”

The Supreme Court further stated that while sexual offences against minors are indeed heinous, the facts of this case were different.

It noted that

“the crime was not the result of lust but love.”

The court highlighted that the woman herself had expressed her desire to lead a “peaceful and stable family life” with her husband, upon whom she is now dependent.

In a compassionate tone, the Bench said,

“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.”

The judges further emphasized that continuing the criminal case or sending the man back to jail would destroy the family’s stability.

The court observed,

“Continuation of the criminal proceedings and the appellant’s incarceration would only disrupt this familial unit and cause irreparable harm to the victim, the infant child, and the fabric of society itself,”

Stressing that the goal of justice sometimes requires flexibility in the strict application of the law, the Bench stated,

“This is a case where the law must yield to the cause of justice.”

Invoking Article 142, which empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary to do complete justice, the court quashed both the conviction and sentence.

At the same time, the judges made it clear that the man carries an important lifelong responsibility. The Bench directed that

“the appellant shall not desert his wife and child and must maintain them for the rest of their life with dignity. If… there be any default on the appellant’s part, the consequences may not be too palatable for him.”

However, the Supreme Court also cautioned that this ruling is not to be treated as a precedent in similar cases. It emphasized that this decision was made

“in the unique circumstances that have unfolded.”

This judgment stands as a rare example of how the Supreme Court can use its extraordinary powers under Article 142 to balance the rigid application of the law with human realities, ensuring that justice is delivered in its truest sense — not just by the letter of the law, but also by compassion and practicality.

Case Title:
K. Kirubakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 679 OF 2024

Read Order:

Click Here to Read More Reports On POCSO

Exit mobile version