At the time of the offence, the man was 24 years old and was convicted for having a sexual relationship with a minor. However, after the girl attained adulthood, the two got married. The couple is now living together and raising their child.
The Supreme Court on Friday opted not to impose a sentence on a man convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The decision was driven by the Court’s assessment that the victim, now an adult, did not view the incident as a crime, and that the greater trauma stemmed from the legal and societal aftermath rather than the act itself.
The top court observed that although the incident qualifies as a legal offence, the victim’s perception diverged from the statutory interpretation. According to the Court-appointed committee’s final report, the distress endured by the victim was largely due to her experiences with law enforcement, the court process, and her struggle to protect the accused.
At the time of the offence, the man was 24 years old and was convicted for having a sexual relationship with a minor. However, after the girl attained adulthood, the two got married. The couple is now living together and raising their child.
A bench comprising Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, which allows the Court to do “complete justice,” to forgo sentencing. “This case serves as an eye-opener,” the bench remarked, outlining critical gaps in the legal framework.
The apex court also painted a grim picture of the victim’s journey, stating that she was denied an informed choice due to societal norms, a failed legal system, and the absence of family support. “The society judged her, the legal system failed her, and her own family abandoned her,” the Court noted, adding that the victim now shares a strong emotional bond with the accused and is deeply protective of her small family unit.
In light of the case’s complexity, the Court issued a slew of directives to the state government and also served notice to the Ministry of Women and Child Development, urging consideration of policy suggestions made by the Amicus Curiae.
Background of the case
This case originated from a suo motu petition initiated by the Supreme Court following contentious comments made by the Calcutta High Court. The High Court had previously acquitted the man convicted under the POCSO Act, making controversial statements about adolescent sexuality and urging teenage girls to exercise restraint over their desires.
On August 20, 2024, the Supreme Court overruled the High Court’s decision, reinstating the man’s conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 376(3) and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), while upholding his acquittal under IPC Sections 363 and 366. The apex court had also rebuked the High Court for its problematic observations, calling them “unwarranted, objectionable,” and in violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.
ALSO READ: Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad gets interim bail from Supreme Court