Supreme Court sets aside POCSO conviction after noting sex was consensual, survivor married accused

The Supreme Court recently quashed the conviction of a man under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) after noting that he had since married the survivor, had a child with her and that both were living a peaceful family life. .The bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih noted that the relationship between the accused and the survivor was consensual and that the offence stemmed from affection rather than predation.“While considering the offence committed by the appellant punishable under the POCSO Act, we have discerned that the crime was not the result of lust but love. The victim of crime herself has expressed her desire to live a peaceful and stable family life with the appellant, upon whom she is dependent, without the appellant carrying the indelible mark on his forehead of being an offender,” the Court said..The Court was hearing an appeal filed by a man convicted under under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act for eloping with and sexually assaulting a minor girl. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of five and ten years respectively. The Madras High Court had upheld his conviction in September 2021, prompting the appeal before the Supreme Court..During the pendency of the case before the High Court, the accused and the survivor solemnised their marriage in May 2021. When the matter reached the Supreme Court, it directed the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority (TNSLSA) to ascertain the well-being of the survivor, who by then the wife of the accused.The TNSLSA submitted a report revealing that the couple were leading a happy married life and had been blessed with a male child under one year of age. The wife also filed an affidavit before the Court expressing her wish to continue living peacefully with her husband, stating that she was dependent upon him and wanted to lead a normal family life free from the shadow of criminal proceedings..The accused urged the Court to invoke its powers under Article 142 to set aside the conviction and sentence, arguing that continuation of criminal proceedings would disrupt the marriage and harm their family.The bench interacted with the survivor’s father, who was the original complainant. He expressed no objection to the criminal case being brought to an end.The Court then examined whether the conviction could be set aside despite the accused being found guilty of a serious offence under the POCSO Act. It observed that while crimes are offences against society at large, the application of criminal law must take into account the realities of individual cases.“We are conscious of the fact that a crime is not merely a wrong against an individual but against society as a whole. When an offence is committed, it wounds the collective conscience of society… However, the administration of such law is not divorced from the practical realities,” the bench observed..The Court underscored that the aim of criminal law is not limited to punishing the guilty but also to restore social harmony and compassion where warranted.“Rendering justice demands a nuanced approach. This Court tailors its decisions to the specifics of each case: with firmness and severity wherever necessary and it is merciful when warranted. It is also in the best interest of society to bring a dispute to an end, wherever possible,” the Court said. It emphasised that courts must sometimes temper rigid application of law to preserve human relationships and achieve true justice.Despite the legislative bar on compounding such offences, the peculiar facts of this case warranted the exercise of Article 142 to render complete justice, the Court said.“Even the most serious offenders of law do receive justice moderated by compassion from the courts, albeit in appropriate cases. Given the peculiar facts and circumstances here, a balanced approach combining practicality and empathy is necessary,” the bench observed..Accordingly, the Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused and ordered that the criminal proceedings stand closed. It, however, imposed a specific condition to safeguard the interests of the wife and child.“Bearing in mind the interests of the appellant’s wife and child, we deem it appropriate to subject the appellant to the specific condition of not deserting his wife and child and also to maintain them for the rest of their life with dignity. If, in future, there be any default on the appellant’s part, the consequences may not be too palatable,” the bench directed..The Court made it clear that its decision was confined to the unique facts of this case and should not be treated as a precedent for other matters..The appellant was represented by advocates Prasanna S, Injila Muslim Zaidi and Prasanna B.The State was represented by Senior Advocate V Krishnamurthy along with advocates Sabarish Subramanian, Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Azka Sheikh Kalia, Jahnavi Taneja and Danish Saifi..[Read Judgment]