Supreme Court Quashes POCSO Conviction, Citing Consensual Relationship and Family Welfare

In a significant judgment reflecting a compassionate and pragmatic approach to justice, the Supreme Court of India has set aside 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, with whom he now shares a child and a peaceful family life.

The decision, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih, highlights the Court’s emphasis on balancing the rigid application of law with the nuances of real-life circumstances.

Background of the Case

The appellant had been convicted under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act for eloping with and sexually assaulting a minor girl. The trial court sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment of five and ten years, respectively, and the Madras High Court upheld this conviction in September 2021.

However, during the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, the accused and the survivor solemnised their marriage in May 2021. The couple has since been living together and are parents to a young son.

Court’s Observations: “Crime Stemming from Love, Not Lust”

While hearing the appeal, the Supreme Court observed that the relationship between the two parties was consensual and born out of affection, rather than predation.

“The crime was not the result of lust but of love,” the bench remarked, adding that the survivor herself wished to continue living peacefully with her husband without him carrying the “indelible mark of being an offender.”

The Court noted that the purpose of criminal law is not merely to punish but also to restore harmony and promote compassion when circumstances justify it.

Verification and Well-being of the Survivor

The Supreme Court directed the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority (TNSLSA) to verify the survivor’s current situation.

The TNSLSA’s report confirmed that the couple were happily married, blessed with a male child, and leading a stable family life.

Additionally, the survivor submitted an affidavit expressing her desire to live peacefully with her husband and stating that she was dependent on him for her and her child’s well-being.

Invoking Article 142: Justice with Compassion

The appellant requested the Court to use its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, which enables the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary to do “complete justice.”

While acknowledging that crimes are offences against society, the bench stressed that justice must also account for practical realities and human relationships.

“Rendering justice demands a nuanced approach. The Court must be firm and severe where necessary, but also merciful when warranted,” the judgment stated.

Despite the statutory bar against compounding such offences under POCSO, the Court found the case’s unique circumstances justified the use of Article 142 to quash the conviction.

Conditional Relief and Warning to the Appellant

While granting relief, the Supreme Court imposed a specific condition to protect the survivor and their child:

“The appellant shall not desert his wife and child and must maintain them with dignity for the rest of their lives. Any default on his part may attract serious consequences,” the Court warned.

The bench clarified that the judgment was based entirely on the peculiar facts of this case and should not be treated as a precedent for other POCSO matters.

Broader Implications

This judgment underscores a delicate balance between legal rigidity and human empathy. It reaffirms that the judiciary’s ultimate goal is to deliver justice, not just enforce punishment—especially when the affected individuals have chosen reconciliation and stability over continued litigation.

By invoking compassion within the framework of law, the Supreme Court once again reminded that justice, in its truest form, must serve both societal conscience and individual welfare.

Representation:

• For the appellant: Advocates Prasanna S, Injila Muslim Zaidi, and Prasanna B.
• For the State: Senior Advocate V. Krishnamurthy, along with Advocates Sabarish Subramanian, Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Azka Sheikh Kalia, Jahnavi Taneja, and Danish Saifi.