New Delhi: In a rare and compassionate exercise of its extraordinary powers, the Supreme Court of India has set aside the conviction and sentence of a man under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act), after observing that he had married the survivor and the couple was leading a peaceful family life with their infant child.

The bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A.G. Masih held that upholding the conviction would cause "irreparable harm" to the wife and child, arguing that the administration of criminal law must be tempered by practical realities and compassion .

The Context: Love vs. Lust

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by a man convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years under Section 6 of the POCSO Act (and Section 366 of the IPC) for eloping with and sexually assaulting a minor girl. The Madras High Court had upheld his conviction in 2021.

During the pendency of the appeal, the key facts changed: the accused and the survivor solemnised their marriage in May 2021.

The Supreme Court directed the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority (TNSLSA) to investigate the family's well-being. The subsequent report confirmed the couple was happily married and had a child under the age of one. Crucially, the wife filed an affidavit asserting her dependence on her husband and her desire to continue their stable family life. Even the original complainant (the survivor's father) gave his consent for the criminal proceedings to end.

The Bench observed:

“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... It is also in the best interest of society to bring a dispute to an end, wherever possible.”

Invoking Article 142 for Complete Justice

Acknowledging that the offence fell under a serious, non-compoundable statute like POCSO, the Court proceeded to invoke its exceptional powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to "render complete justice."

The judgment underscored that the purpose of criminal law is not limited to punishment, but also includes restoring social harmony. The court stressed the need to "temper rigid application of law to preserve human relationships" and achieve true justice in peculiar circumstances.

Condition for Future Welfare

To safeguard the interests of the wife and child, the Court imposed a stringent condition while setting aside the conviction:

“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 Court made it abundantly clear that this decision was confined to the unique, factual matrix of this particular case and should not be treated as a precedent for other POCSO 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 other advocates.

JUDGEMENT LINK :

https://api.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2022/20834/20834_2022_6_46_65176_Judgement_28-Oct-2025.pdf