The Supreme Court on October 28, 2025 quashed a sentence where the appellant was convicted for offences under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 and Section 6 of the POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Act, 2012. Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih held that owing to the extraordinary circumstances of the case, a continued conviction of the appellant would adversely affect both the victim-wife and their infant child, due to which compassion and social welfare must prevail.
The appellant was convicted for offences punishable under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 for kidnapping or abducting a woman to compel her marriage, and Section 6 of the POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Act, 2012 for aggravated penetrative sexual assault, and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and ten years, along with fine. During the pendency of his appeal before the Madras HIgh Court, which was later dismissed on September 13, 2021 , the appellant married the victim in May 2021, and had a male child. Subsequently, based on these developments, the appellant urged the Court to quash the conviction under Article 142 and protect the marital harmony and welfare of his family. The victim too, now the appellant’s wife, submitted an affidavit supporting this plea and expressing her wish to continue living peacefully with her husband alongwith her father,the complainant, who also stated that he had no objection to termination of the criminal proceedings. The prosecution, however, highlighted that the offences involved are grave and ordinarily not capable of being quashed on the basis of compromise.
The Court stated that while offences under POCSO Act represent crimes against society and should be dealt with strictly, criminal justice must remain sensitive to practical realities and extraordinary circumstances with the possibility of rehabilitative outcomes. It reiterated that the constitutional mandate under Article 142 allows it to do “complete justice,” especially where rigid enforcement of law may cause greater harm than relief. Therefore noting the consensual relationship of the appellant and his wife and how the continuity of the conviction would disrupt a now-stable family life, the Court quashed the conviction and sentence, subject to a strict condition that the appellant must not desert his wife or child and shall maintain them with dignity throughout their lives. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed with a further caution that any default in compliance would invite severe consequences and further clarified that the relief was granted owing to unique facts and shall not operate as precedent for future cases.
Appearances:
For the Appellant: AOR Prasanna S., Advocates Injila Muslim Zaidi, Prasanna B
For the Respondent: Senior Advocate V. Krishnamurthy, AOR Sabarish Subramanian, Advocates Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Azka Sheikh Kalia, Jahnavi Taneja, Danish Saifi
