The Supreme Court has quashed a conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act), observing that the sexual relationship between the accused and the survivor was consensual and later culminated in marriage and the birth of a child.

The Court emphasised that continuation of the conviction would disturb family harmony and cause irreparable harm to the wife and child.

A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih exercised powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, holding that justice must be tempered with compassion when the peculiar facts of a case demand it. The Court stressed that “the act was born of love, not lust,” and the administration of criminal law must account for human realities rather than rigid formalism.

The appellant had been convicted under Section 366 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act for eloping with and sexually assaulting a minor girl. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years, a decision upheld by the Madras High Court in September 2021. However, during the pendency of appeal, the accused married the survivor in May 2021, and the couple was later blessed with a son.

Upon the direction of the Supreme Court, the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority (TNSLSA) submitted a detailed report confirming that the couple was living peacefully and maintaining a stable family life. The survivor also filed an affidavit expressing her wish to continue living with her husband, asserting her emotional and financial dependence upon him.

The Bench noted the father of the survivor, the original complainant, had no objection to the quashing of proceedings. Taking into account the welfare of the survivor, the Court observed that

“it would be unjust to allow the shadow of a criminal conviction to loom over their marital life.”

The Supreme Court, while acknowledging that offences under the POCSO Act are crimes against society, clarified that criminal law must adapt to the unique facts of each case to ensure true justice. The Court highlighted that “justice is not vengeance; it is restoration and balance.”

It further added that

“even the gravest offenders receive justice moderated by compassion in appropriate cases.”

Accordingly, invoking Article 142, the Court set aside the conviction and closed the criminal proceedings, subject to a clear directive that the appellant must not desert his wife and child and must maintain them with dignity throughout their lives. The Bench cautioned that any default in this responsibility “may not be palatable.”

The Court also clarified that this ruling is confined strictly to the unique facts of this case and should not be treated as a precedent for other POCSO matters.

Legal Representation and Bench Details

• Appellant: Represented by Advocates Prasanna S, Injila Muslim Zaidi, and Prasanna B.
• Respondent (State of Tamil Nadu): Represented by Senior Advocate V. Krishnamurthy with Advocates Sabarish Subramanian, Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Azka Sheikh Kalia, Jahnavi Taneja, and Danish Saifi.
• Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih

Follow The Legal QnA For More Updates…