New Delhi: In a landmark judgment invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court, on Friday, May 23, withheld sentencing in a POCSO case involving a man who had a sexual relationship with a minor and later married her.
The bench, comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, cited “extraordinary circumstances” and the need to deliver “complete justice” in deciding not to impose any punishment, despite restoring the man’s conviction.
High Court's Controversial Comments
The case initially drew national attention after the Calcutta High Court, in a 2023 ruling, acquitted the man and overturned his 20-year sentence. The High Court controversially remarked that adolescent girls should "control sexual urges," and asserted that society sees them as the "loser" in such encounters. These statements drew widespread condemnation and prompted the SC to step in not only to scrutinise the acquittal but to address the language used by the HC.
On 20 August 2024, the SC set aside the HC’s judgment, reinstating the conviction. However, the bench halted sentencing and directed a fact-finding process to understand the current circumstances of the now-adult victim. The West Bengal government was asked to form a specialised committee, comprising experts from institutions like NIMHANS or TISS, alongside a child welfare officer.
What Did the Court Observe?
The expert committee, after conducting a psychological and social evaluation, concluded that the victim had developed a strong emotional bond with the accused and was protective of their family unit, which now includes a child.
“She did not have the opportunity to make an informed choice earlier. The system failed her at multiple levels,” the Court observed, as quoted by LiveLaw. The panel also highlighted her current educational struggles and recommended vocational support after her Class 10 exams.
In the final judgment delivered this April, the Court noted, "The society judged her, the legal system failed her, and her own family abandoned her." It further added, "Though the incident is seen as crime in law, the victim did not accept it as one... What she had to face as a consequence was the police, the legal system, and a constant battle to save the accused from punishment," as reported by Bar & Bench.
The ruling marked a rare use of Article 142, allowing the Court to bypass statutory sentencing in order to protect the dignity and autonomy of a victim who, by her own testimony, suffered more at the hands of the system than the accused.
