The Supreme Court has invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to set aside a conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, taking into account a series of developments that unfolded long after the criminal proceedings began.
A Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar allowed the appeal of a man who had earlier been convicted under the POCSO Act and sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment. The Court noted that the accused and the victim had since married after she attained majority and that he had paid her ₹10 lakh as compensation.
Making it clear that the decision was confined to the unusual facts of the case and should not serve as a precedent, the Bench observed that the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court stood annulled, leaving the couple free to continue their lives together as spouses.
The case traces back to a 2019 conviction under Sections 5(l) and 6 of the POCSO Act. While the appeal against the conviction was pending before the Madras High Court, the accused secured suspension of his sentence.
Meanwhile, the victim approached the High Court seeking closure of the proceedings. In an affidavit, she stated that she and the accused had been living together for several years and requested that the conviction be set aside. The High Court, however, declined the plea in 2021.
The matter eventually reached the Supreme Court. During the proceedings, the Court directed that the victim’s statement be recorded before a Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As questions remained regarding the status of the parties’ relationship, a fresh statement was later ordered.
In her statement, the woman recounted that the accused had engaged in a relationship with her on the assurance of marriage but later withdrew. She subsequently lodged a police complaint and married another person. According to her account, that marriage later broke down after her husband learned of her earlier relationship. She then returned to live with her father. Eventually, the accused’s family approached her, and the two married in 2024 after she had attained adulthood.
When the case came up for hearing earlier this year, the Court was informed that the woman no longer wished to pursue the litigation if she received ₹10 lakh as financial security. At a later hearing, it was confirmed that the amount had been paid and the relevant statement had been formally recorded.
The Bench also took note of the State Government’s stand that it would not oppose the conviction being set aside, provided the order was not treated as a precedent.
Without examining the merits of the original conviction, the Court concluded that the subsequent marriage, the victim’s position, the compensation paid and the exceptional circumstances justified the exercise of its plenary powers under Article 142. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence were quashed and the appellant was acquitted of the charge.
