New Delhi, Oct 31 (IANS) In an extraordinary exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, aimed at doing “complete justice,” the Supreme Court of India has quashed the conviction and sentence of a man found guilty under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

Observing that “peculiar facts and circumstances” warranted compassion, a Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih allowed the appeal of a man, who had been sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and five years under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for kidnapping and sexually assaulting a minor girl.

The Justice Datta-led Bench noted that during the pendency of the appeal, the appellant and the victim, now adults, had married in May 2021 and were leading a “happy married life” with a one-year-old son.

The wife had also given an affidavit expressing her desire to lead a happy, normal, and peaceful life with her husband.

“We are conscious of the fact that a crime is not merely a wrong against an individual but against society as a whole,” said the apex court, adding that “the administration of criminal law is not divorced from the practical realities. Rendering justice demands a nuanced approach.”

While acknowledging that the POCSO Act treats sexual offences against minors as heinous, the Justice Datta-led Bench said that in this case, “the crime was not the result of lust but love.”

“The victim of the crime herself has expressed her desire to live a peaceful and stable family life with the appellant, upon whom she is dependent,” the apex court stated.

“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,” it added.

Holding that “this is a case where the law must yield to the cause of justice,” the Supreme Court invoked its powers under Article 142 to quash the conviction and sentence.

At the same time, the Justice Datta-led Bench ordered that “the appellant shall not desert his wife and child and must maintain them for the rest of their life with dignity. If… there be any default on the appellant’s part, the consequences may not be too palatable for him.”

The apex court clarified that this judgment should not to be treated as a precedent, highlighting that it was rendered only “in the unique circumstances that have unfolded.”

–IANS

pds/rad