'Love Not Lust': Why SC Quashed POCSO Conviction Against Man Who Married Victim

The Supreme Court recently quashed the conviction and sentence of a man found guilty under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution aimed at doing "complete justice," the Bench, led by Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, observed that the "peculiar facts and circumstances" of the case "warranted compassion", Bar and Bench reported.The man had been sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and five years under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly kidnapping and sexually assaulting a minor girl, according to a report by IANS. The Madras High Court had upheld his conviction in September 2021,

prompting the appeal before the Supreme Court.The SC noted that during the pendency of the appeal, the appellant and the victim, now adults, had married in May 2021 and were leading a "happy married life" with a one-year-old son. The wife had also given an affidavit expressing her desire to lead a happy, normal, and peaceful life with her husband.The Justice Datta-led Bench said that in this case "the crime was not the result of lust but love" while acknowledging that the POCSO Act treats sexual offences against minors as heinous."We are conscious of the fact that a crime is not merely a wrong against an individual but against society as a whole," said the apex court, adding that "the administration of criminal law is not divorced from the practical realities" and "rendering justice demands a nuanced approach.""The victim of the crime herself has expressed her desire to live a peaceful and stable family life with the appellant, upon whom she is dependent," the apex court stated. "Continuation of the criminal proceedings and the appellant’s incarceration would only disrupt this familial unit and cause irreparable harm to the victim, the infant child, and the fabric of society itself," it added.

'Case should not be treated as precedent': SC

At the same time, the apex court made it clear in its judgment that the case should not be treated as a precedent, highlighting that it was rendered only "in the unique circumstances that have unfolded.”Holding that "this is a case where the law must yield to the cause of justice", the Supreme Court invoked its powers under Article 142 to quash the conviction and sentence. The bench also ordered that "the appellant shall not desert his wife and child and must maintain them for the rest of their life with dignity. If… there be any default on the appellant’s part, the consequences may not be too palatable for him."(With agency inputs)