Society, Victim’s Family & Legal System Have Done Enough Injustice: Supreme Court Refuses To Send POCSO Accused Who Was Married To Victim To Jail
The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the Judgment of the Calcutta High Court’s Division Bench, in which certain objectionable observations were made.
The Supreme Court has refused to send an accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) to jail who was married to the victim, holding that though he stands convicted, he will not undergo sentence.
The Court took suo motu cognizance of the Judgment of the Calcutta High Court’s Division Bench, in which certain objectionable observations were made.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan remarked, “In law, we have no option but to sentence the accused and send him to jail for undergoing the minimum punishment prescribed by the Statute. However, in this case, the society, the family of the victim and the legal system have done enough injustice to the victim. She has been subjected to enough trauma and agony. We do not want to add to the injustice done to the victim by sending her husband to jail. We as Judges, cannot shut our eyes to these harsh realities. Now, at this stage, in order to do real justice to the victim, the only option left before us is to ensure that the accused is not separated from the victim. The State and the society must ensure that the family is rehabilitated till the family settles down in all respects.”
The Bench said that the facts of this case are an eye opener for everyone and the same highlights the lacuna in our legal system.
Senior Advocates Madhavi Divan and Liz Mathew were appointed as the Amicus Curiae. Senior Advocate Huzefa Ahmadi appeared on behalf of the State.
Brief Facts
A Criminal Appeal was filed by the West Bengal State against the 2023 Judgment passed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court. In Suo Motu Writ Petition, the Apex Court’s attention was drawn to certain objectionable observations made in the said Judgement. While dealing with the same, the Court took note of the systemic failure of the State to protect the victim, resulting in her fate and wellbeing being ultimately tied up with that of the accused. Hence, the Court in this case dealt with the issue of sentencing of the accused arising out of the Criminal Appeal and the Suo Motu Writ Petition. It also dealt with the issue of rehabilitation of the victim and her child. As per the Committee's report, the victim met the accused through her neighbour who happened to be the sister of the accused. At that time, their ages were 13 and 25 years respectively.
It was claimed that over a period of time they both fell in love and in 2018, the victim left her home. She allegedly married the accused at a temple and thereafter, the victim’s mother lodged a Police Complaint. The Special Judge (POCSO Act) had convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twenty (20) years and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. The accused had preferred an Appeal before the High Court against his conviction, which set aside the same. The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s Judgment and restored the verdict of the Special Court. However, the sentencing was postponed for the reasons recorded in the Judgment.
Issues for consideration
Broadly, there were three issues to be considered by the Court. The first issue was of sentencing the accused. The second issue was about the rehabilitation of the victim and her child. The third issue was a wider issue about adopting measures for adolescent wellbeing and child protection which goes to the root cause of the problem in our changing society.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in the above regard, observed, “The final report concludes that though the incident was seen as a crime in law, the victim did not accept it as one. The Committee records that it was not the legal crime that caused any trauma to the victim, but rather, it was the consequences that followed, which took a toll on her. What she had to face as a consequence was the police, the legal system and the constant battle to save the accused from punishment. At the same time, she took care of her daughter to the best of her abilities, notwithstanding the huge financial burden she carried.”
The Court said that though the victim did not treat the incident as a heinous crime, she suffered because of it and this was because at an earlier stage, the victim could not make an informed choice due to the shortcomings of our society, our legal system, and her family.
“What troubles us is the issue of sentencing. The reports of the Committee stare at our faces. … In fact, she did not get any opportunity to make informed choice. The society judged her, the legal system failed her, and her own family abandoned her. Now, she is at a stage where she is desperate to save her husband. Now, she is emotionally committed to the accused and has become very possessive of her small family”, it further noted.
The Court was of the view that if it sends the accused to jail, the worst sufferer will be the victim herself.
“As compared to the situation in 2018, she is better placed today. Now she is comfortable with her small family. She along with the accused, is concentrating on their daughter and they want to ensure that she gets quality education. At the same time, as recorded in the final report, the victim is attending school and is desperate to complete her school education”, it also observed.
The Court noted that though the State has offered to enroll the victim in some vocational course, she is keen on completing her education, at least up to graduation.
“Ultimately, this Court is bestowed with extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 for the sole object of ensuring that the highest Court of the land is in a position to do substantial justice in its truest sense. In the context of this situation, sadly, true justice lies in not sentencing the accused to undergo imprisonment. This case is not going to be a precedent and should not be a precedent. This case is an illustration of the complete failure of our society and our legal system”, it said.
The Court added that all that the system can do for the victim now, is to help her fulfil her desire of completing her education, settling down in life, providing a better education to her daughter and ensuring overall better living conditions for her family.
“This year we have completed 75 years of the Constitution on 26th January. The Constitution contemplates the State to be a welfare state. The Constitution guaranteed social and economic justice to all the citizens. In this case, there is a failure to provide both social and economic justice to the victim. The facts of the case indicate failure of the concept of welfare state. To remedy the situation in this case, it is the obligation of the State Government to act as the true guardian of the victim and her child and ensure that they settle down in life and lead a happy, healthy and constructive life ahead”, it further remarked.
The Court concluded that it cannot leave this case by simply making an attempt to take care of the family of the victim rather it will have to carry it further by taking forward the suggestions of the Amicus Curiae.
“For carrying forward the suggestion of the learned amici, we propose to implead the Union of India through the Ministry of Women and Child Development, so that more effective orders can be passed”, it ordered.
Directions
The Court, therefore, issued the following directions –
• Though the accused stands convicted, he will not undergo sentence for the reasons stated earlier.
• The State shall act as a true guardian of the victim and her child; provide a better shelter to the victim and her family within a period of few months; bear the entire expenditure of the education of the victim till Xth standard examination and if she desires to take up education for a degree course, till the completion of degree course and after she passes her Xth standard examination the State can offer her vocational training, obviously, at the cost of the State; bear the entire expenditure of the education of the child up to Xth standard and ensuring that she is educated in a very good school in the vicinity of the place of residence of the victim; and endeavour to take the assistance of NGOs or public-spirited citizens for the purpose of securing the debts incurred by the victim as a one-time measure.
• The State shall file compliance report giving details of the implementation of the above directions.
• Issue notice to the Union of India through the Secretary of the Ministry of Women and Child Development.
• Immediately on service of notice, the Secretary of the Ministry of Women and Child Development shall appoint a Committee of experts to deal with the suggestions of the Amicus Curiae.
• The Committee will submit a detailed report before the returnable date to the Court.
Accordingly, the Apex Court issued the necessary directions.
Cause Title- In Re: Right to privacy of adolescents (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 778)
Appearance:
ASG Aishwarya Bhati, AAG Shiv Mangal Sharma, Senior Advocates Madhavi Divan, Liz Mathew, Huzefa Ahmadi, Swarupama Chaturvedi, Ruchi Kohli, AORs Nidhi Khanna, Kunal Mimani, Abhijit Sengupta, Ankita Sharma, N. Visakamurthy, Anuj Bhandari, Nidhi Khanna, Astha Sharma, Aravindh S., Nidhi Jaswal, Advocates Aishani Narain, Sameer Choudhary, Aandrita Deb, Bagavathy Vennimalai, Mallika Agarwal, Abhinav Rana, Dibyadyuti Banerjee, Sumedha Halder, Paras Chauhan, Navneet Kansal, Manoj Kumar, Dhananjay Kumar, Kartikey Bhatt, Abhinav Rana, Chinmayee Chandra, Archana Surve Shinde, Riddhi Jad, Anupriya Srivastava, Shivika Mehra, Poornima Singh, Aman Gautam, and Abhinav Rana.
