SC uses special powers to set aside POCSO conviction to let couple live ‘peacefully’ as spouses

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

The View From India Looking at World Affairs from the Indian perspective.

First Day First Show News and reviews from the world of cinema and streaming.

Today's Cache Your download of the top 5 technology stories of the day.

Data Point Decoding the headlines with facts, figures, and numbers

Health Matters Ramya Kannan writes to you on getting to good health, and staying there

The Hindu On Books Books of the week, reviews, excerpts, new titles and features.

The Supreme Court said the order has been passed in the peculiar facts of the case and will not be treated as a precedent for any other purpose. File | Photo Credit: PTI

The Supreme Court has invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to set aside the conviction of a man sentenced under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, noting that his victim had married him when she became a legal adult. The court observed that the couple should now be allowed to live “peacefully in society as spouses”.

Article 142 empowers the top court to do “complete justice” in situations where the law may not provide an adequate remedy. The provision enables the court to mould relief in a manner suited to the peculiar facts and circumstances of a case.

The man and woman in this case had fallen in love while she was still a minor, studying in Class 12. According to the case records, she lodged a criminal complaint after he refused to marry her. This culminated in his conviction by a trial court in Harur in 2019 for aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act. He was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment and fined for having a physical relationship with a minor.

The couple later reconciled, solemnised their marriage, and began living together. A plea was subsequently moved before the Madras High Court seeking to have the conviction set aside. The High Court, however, declined the request and also rejected the woman’s application seeking permission to place additional evidence on record and depose in support of the convict.

Aggrieved by the High Court’s order, the convict approached the Supreme Court seeking to have the conviction set aside. He submitted that the criminal case had arisen out of a “misunderstanding” and that they had been in a relationship since 2012. The court was also informed that they were now living together as husband and wife and sought its intervention to “put quietus to the litigation”.

A Bench of Justices J