Supreme Court Overturns POCSO Conviction After Victim Marries Offender: A Rare Case of "Love, Not Lust"

The Supreme Court clarified that this judgment should not be treated as a precedent.

New Delhi:

In an exceptional application of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to deliver "complete justice," India's Supreme Court has overturned the conviction and sentence of a man previously found guilty under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

A Bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih determined that "peculiar facts and circumstances" justified compassion, thereby granting the appeal of a man who had received 10 years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and an additional five years under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for kidnapping and sexually assaulting a minor.

The Justice Datta-led Bench highlighted that during the appeal process, the appellant and the victim, now both adults, had married in May 2021 and were currently enjoying a "happy married life" with their one-year-old son.

The wife submitted an affidavit expressing her wish to lead a happy, normal, and peaceful life with her husband.

"We recognize that a crime is not merely a wrong against an individual but against society as a whole," stated the apex court, adding that "the administration of criminal law is not separated from practical realities. Rendering justice requires a nuanced approach."

While acknowledging the POCSO Act's treatment of sexual offences against minors as heinous crimes, the Justice Datta-led Bench determined that in this specific case, "the crime was not the result of lust but love."

"The victim herself has expressed her desire to live a peaceful and stable family life with the appellant, on whom she is dependent," the apex court noted.

"Continuing 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," the court added.

Concluding that "this is a case where the law must yield to the cause of justice," the Supreme Court invoked its powers under Article 142 to quash the conviction and sentence.

Simultaneously, the Justice Datta-led Bench ordered 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."

The Supreme Court emphasized that this judgment should not be treated as a precedent, stressing that it was delivered only "in the unique circumstances that have unfolded."