The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment dated October 28, 2025, invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash the conviction and sentence of a man convicted under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1872.
The bench, comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih, set aside the conviction after noting that the appellant had subsequently married the victim, and the couple is now leading a happy life with their infant child. The Court imposed a strict condition on the appellant to maintain his wife and child for the rest of their lives.
Background of the Case
The appellant was convicted by a trial court for offences punishable under section 366 of the IPC and section 6 of the POCSO Act, and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and 10 years, respectively. His appeal against this conviction was dismissed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras via an order dated September 13, 2021.
During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, the appellant and the “victim of crime” solemnized their marriage in May 2021.
By an order dated February 6, 2024, the Supreme Court directed the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority (TNSLSA) to ascertain the well-being of the appellant’s wife. The Member Secretary of the TNSLSA submitted a report revealing that “after marriage the appellant and his wife have been blessed with a male child, who is less than one year old, and also that they are leading a happy married life.”
Submissions Before the Court
The Court noted that the appellant’s wife had filed an affidavit stating that “she is dependent upon the appellant and wishes to lead a happy, normal, and peaceful life with him and the child born in their wedlock.”
A prayer was made on behalf of the appellant to invoke the Court’s powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash the conviction and sentence “to avoid disruption of the matrimonial harmony between the parties.”
The bench also considered the stance of the complainant, the victim’s father. He appeared before the Court through virtual mode and stated that “he has no objection to the criminal proceedings being brought to an end.”
The Court’s Analysis
The judgment, authored by Justice Dipankar Datta, framed the “only question” as “whether the proceedings should be quashed in the present case, considering that the appellant is convicted of a heinous offence.”
The Court acknowledged that “a crime is not merely a wrong against an individual but against society as a whole” and that when an offence is committed, “it wounds the collective conscience of the society.”
However, the bench observed that “the administration of such law is not divorced from the practical realities.” Quoting Benjamin N. Cardozo that “The final cause of law is the welfare of society,” the Court held that the law aims to ensure “not just punishment of the guilty, but also harmony and restoration of the social order.”
The Court stated that it must “balance the competing interests of justice, deterrence, and rehabilitation.” It highlighted the “extraordinary power” under Article 142 to do “complete justice,” which is “intended to avoid situations of injustice being caused by the rigid application of law.”
The judgment recognized that “Per the law made by the legislature,” the proceedings for a heinous offence could not be quashed on the basis of a compromise. However, the Court opined that “ignoring the cry of the appellant’s wife for compassion and empathy will not, in our opinion, serve the ends of justice.”
The bench made a crucial discernment regarding the nature of the offence: “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 Court concluded that continuing the incarceration would “only disrupt this familial unit and cause irreparable harm to the victim, the infant child, and the fabric of society itself.” Persuaded that “this is a case where the law must yield to the cause of justice,” the Court decided to intervene.
The Final Decision
Resting on these considerations and “in the interest of rendering complete justice,” the Supreme Court deemed it appropriate to invoke its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.
The Court ordered to “quash the criminal proceedings against the appellant including the conviction and sentence.”
This relief was made subject to a “specific condition” that the appellant must “not deserting his wife and child and also to maintain them for the rest of their life with dignity.” The Court issued a stern warning that if any default is brought to its notice, “the consequences may not be too palatable for the appellant.”
The appeal was, accordingly, allowed. The Court made its interim order granting exemption from surrendering absolute and discharged the appellant from his bail bonds.
The judgment concluded with a caveat: “Needless to observe, this order is rendered in the unique circumstances that have unfolded before us and shall not be treated as a precedent for any other case.”
