'Crime Was Not Result Of Lust But Love' : Supreme Court Quashes POCSO Act Conviction Noting Marriage Between Accused & Victim

In a rare judgment invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has quashed the conviction and sentence of a man who had been found guilty under Section 366 IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, after taking note of his subsequent marriage to the victim and their settled family life.The Court also imposed a condition upon the appellant to not desert his wife and child and to maintain them with dignity for the rest of their lives, warning that any breach of this condition could invite serious consequences.The bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih observed that while the appellant had been convicted of a heinous offence, the peculiar facts of the case called for “a balanced approach combining practicality and empathy”, especially since the victim, now his wife, had expressed her wish to live peacefully with him along with their infant child.The wife (victim) filed an affidavit expressing her desire to live peacefully with her husband and stating her dependence on him. Also, the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority (“TNSLSA”) confirmed that the couple were living happily with their infant child.Quoting Justice Benjamin Cardozo, the judgment began with the observation that “the final cause of law is the welfare of society.” The bench elaborated that criminal law, while a manifestation of society's collective conscience, must also be administered in line with “practical realities” and “compassion moderated by justice.”“While considering the offence committed by the appellant punishable under the POCSO Act, we have discerned that the crime was not the result of lust but love,” the Court remarked.“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,” the Court added.“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 court added. The Court noted that “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.”Emphasizing that justice is not served by rigid application of the law in every circumstance, the Court held that “this is a case where the law must yield to the cause of justice.”Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, discharging the Appellant of the offence, with a “specific condition of not deserting his wife and child and also to maintain them for the rest of their life with dignity.”Moreover, the Court also cautioned that "this order is rendered in the unique circumstances that have unfolded before us and shall not be treated as a precedent for any other case."In another case, the Supreme Court is considering whether the age of consent under the POCSO Act should be reduced to 16 years so as to exempt consensual romantic affairs between adolescents from criminal consequences.Cause Title: K. KIRUBAKARAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADUCitation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1048Click here to read/download the judgmentAppearance: For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prasanna S., AOR Ms. Injila Muslim Zaidi, Adv. Mr. Prasanna B, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Ms. Azka Sheikh Kalia, Adv. Ms. Jahnavi Taneja, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv.Related - Supreme Court Refrains From Sentencing POCSO Convict After Noting That Victim Is Now Married To Him & Didn't See It As Crime

'Crime Was Not Result Of Lust But Love' : Supreme Court Quashes POCSO Act Conviction Noting Marriage Between Accused & Victim

Yash Mittal

This is a case where the law must yield to the cause of justice, the Court said.

Tags