'Not lust, love': Supreme Court quashes conviction of POCSO convict noting marriage between victim, accused

The Supreme Court has quashed the conviction and sentence of a man who was found guilty under Section 366 IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children Act. The top court took note of his subsequent marriage to the victim and their peaceful marriage life. The court, using special powers under Article 142 aimed at doing "complete justice", acquitted the accused who had been sentenced to 10-year jail under POSCO Act, saying the crime was not the result of lust but love.

Observing that “peculiar facts and circumstances” warranted compassion, a Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih allowed the appeal of a man, who had been sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and five years under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for kidnapping and sexually assaulting a minor girl. The court, however, set the condition that the man must not abandon her or their infant child.

ALSO READ: 'Agreement to sell' doesn’t mean property ownership: Landlord wins case in court after tenants claim ownership of the property

'Not the result of lust but love'

The Supreme Court said that keeping the man in jail would harm the family, the victim and the child. "While considering the offence... punishable under the POCSO Act, we have discerned that the crime was not the result of lust but love. The victim of crime herself has expressed her desire to live a peaceful and stable family life with the appellant, upon whom she is dependent, without the appellant carrying the indelible mark on his forehead of being an offender.

The Justice Datta-led Bench noted that 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 court said it could not ignore the woman’s plea to exonerate her husband so that they may “lead a peaceful marital life.”

"As per the law..., the appellant having been found guilty of a heinous offence, the proceedings in the present case on the basis of a compromise between the appellant and his wife cannot be quashed. But ignoring the cry of his wife for compassion and empathy will not, in our opinion, serve the ends of justice. Even the most serious offenders of law do receive justice moderated by compassion from the courts, albeit in appropriate cases. Given the peculiar facts and circumstances here, a balanced approach combining practicality and empathy is necessary," the bench said.

ALSO READ: 'Vance announces divorce, marries Charlie Kirk’s widow by end of 2026': NYT author's chilling prediction amid hug row goes viral



“We are conscious of the fact that a crime is not merely a wrong against an individual but against society as a whole. When an offence is committed, it wounds the collective conscience of the society…However, the administration of such law is not divorced from the practical realities. Rendering justice demands a nuanced approach. This Court tailors its decisions to the specifics of each case: with firmness and severity wherever necessary and it is merciful when warranted,” the bench said.

'Protect interest of wife, child'

The apex court set some conditions on the man to protect the interest of wife and child. The husband must not desert them or child and must maintain them with dignity. "If, in future, there be any default on the appellant's part and the same is brought to the notice of this Court by his wife or their child or the complainant, the consequences may not be too palatable for the appellant," the court said.

(With TOI inputs)