New Delhi (Gurpreet Singh): The Supreme Court of India has exercised its extraordinary plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to set aside the conviction and 10-year prison sentence of a man under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The landmark ruling came after the court observed that the victim voluntarily married the accused upon reaching adulthood and sought to preserve her domestic peace. A vacation bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar ruled that forcing the husband to serve the remainder of his sentence would disrupt a settled marital life, clearing the couple to live peacefully in society as spouses.
The case originated from a romantic relationship formed while the victim was a Class 12 student. After the man initially refused marriage, the victim lodged a criminal complaint that culminated in his conviction and 10-year sentence by a Tamil Nadu trial court in 2019 for aggravated penetrative sexual assault. While the appellant’s sentence was later suspended pending appeal, the victim married another man, who subsequently abandoned her after discovering her past relationship. The appellant and the victim later reconciled, solemnized their marriage, and began living together, leading the woman to approach the Madras High Court to set aside the conviction.
After the High Court rejected her plea to place additional evidence on record, the couple moved the top court. The Supreme Court interacted directly with the woman virtually through a Tamil-knowing counsel to ascertain her voluntary consent. During the interactions, the woman confirmed she had no objection to the case being closed and noted she had successfully realized 10 lakh rupees from the appellant as a financial security lump sum. The State Government also communicated that it held no reservations against setting aside the conviction in the interest of securing the social order of the individuals involved.
While allowing the appeal and acquitting the man, the Supreme Court explicitly clarified that the indulgence was granted strictly in light of the highly peculiar factual matrix and unique subsequent events of the case. The bench emphasized that the judgment stands purely on its individual merits and will not be treated as a legal precedent for any other purpose. Because the appellant’s substantive jail sentence had remained suspended since June 2019, the apex court added that he is no longer required to surrender to custody.
