Law Must Yield To Cause Of Justice: Supreme Court Quashes POCSO Case Where Victim Married Accused On Condition Of No Desertion In Future
The Appeal before the Supreme Court was filed by a man who was sentenced in a case registered under the provisions of the IPC and POCSO Act.
Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Augustine George Masih, Supreme Court
Adopting a balanced approach combining practicality and empathy, the Supreme Court has quashed a POCSO case where the marriage between the accused and the victim of the crime was solemnised and a child was born. Observing that the case at hand was one where law would yield to the cause of justice, the Apex Court asked the accused not to desert his wife and child and maintain them for the rest of their life with dignity.
The Appeal before the Apex Court was filed by a man who was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and 10 years in a case registered under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1872 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The appellant’s appeal before the Madras High Court came to be dismissed.
The Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih held, “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. 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.”
“We are, thus, persuaded to hold that this is a case where the law must yield to the cause of justice”, it added.
AOR Prasanna S. represented the Appellant, while Senior Advocate V. Krishnamurthy represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The marriage between the appellant and the victim of the crime was solemnised in May 2021. The Apex Court had earlier directed the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority to ascertain the well-being of the appellant’s wife. Pursuant thereto, the Member Secretary of the TNSLSA interacted with the appellant’s wife and submitted a report revealing that after marriage, the appellant and his wife were blessed with a male child and were leading a happy married life. During the course of the hearing, a prayer was made on behalf of the appellant to invoke the powers of the Court under Article 142 of the Constitution for quashing the conviction and sentence to avoid disruption of the matrimonial harmony between the parties.
Reasoning
The Bench, at the outset, observed that criminal law is a manifestation of the sovereign will of 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. It is also in the best interest of society to bring a dispute to an end, wherever possible. We draw inspiration from Cardozo, J. to hold that the law aims to ensure not just punishment of the guilty, but also harmony and restoration of the social order”, it stated.
Highlighting the need to balance the competing interests of justice, deterrence, and rehabilitation, the Bench noted that even the most serious offenders of law do receive justice moderated by compassion from the courts, albeit in appropriate cases. As per the Bench, a balanced approach combining practicality and empathy was required, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
The Bench found that the appellant and the victim were legally married and were living together as a family. The offence committed by the appellant was punishable under the POCSO Act, but the crime was not the result of lust but love. It was noticed that the victim of the crime herself had expressed her desire to live a peaceful and stable family life with the appellant. Thus, in the interest of rendering complete justice, the Apex Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash the criminal proceedings against the appellant, including the conviction and sentence.
Allowing the appeal, the Bench further ordered, “Also, 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 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.”
Cause Title: K. Kirubakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1272)
Appearance
Appellant: AOR Prasanna S., Advocates Injila Muslim Zaidi, Prasanna B
Respondent: Senior Advocate V. Krishnamurthy, AOR Sabarish Subramanian, Advocates Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Azka Sheikh Kalia, Jahnavi Taneja, Danish Saifi