Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary constitutional authority under Article 142 to quash the conviction and sentence of a man convicted under offences involving kidnapping and sexual offence against a minor. The Trial Court and High Court had affirmed guilt, but the Supreme Court held that the unique post-conviction circumstances, including a legally solemnised marriage, the birth of a child, and a stable family life, justified invoking its power to do “complete justice.”
The Court emphasised that while offences of this nature are undeniably grave and generally non-compoundable, the administration of justice must remain attuned to practical realities, welfare of the victim, and restoration of social order. The Court held that the victim, now an adult spouse and mother, expressed clear desire to continue marital life, and any continued incarceration would “disrupt the familial unit and cause harm to the victim, the child, and society.”
The conviction and sentence were therefore quashed entirely, subject to strict conditions obligating the man to maintain his wife and child with dignity.
Facts
The man had been convicted by the Trial Court for offences of kidnapping and penetrative sexual assault under relevant statutory provisions. The High Court upheld the conviction. During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, the accused and the victim solemnised their marriage and subsequently had a child.
The Supreme Court, while hearing the appeal, directed the State Legal Services Authority to interact with the woman to ascertain her well-being. The report confirmed that she was happily married, living with the man, and entirely dependent on him for emotional and financial support. She filed an affidavit reiterating that she wished to continue living with him peacefully.
The Court also interacted with her parent, who expressed no objection to the criminal proceedings being brought to an end. Ultimately, the Supreme Court was confronted with the question: Should a conviction for a serious offence be allowed to stand when all stakeholders — the victim, the family, and the institution of marriage — overwhelmingly support closure?
Issues
- Whether the Supreme Court can quash a conviction for a serious, non-compoundable offence under its power to do “complete justice.”
- Whether post-conviction developments, including marriage and childbirth, justify invoking Article 142 in a case involving a minor victim at the time of incident.
- Whether quashing the conviction would undermine the legislative intention behind stringent statutory protections.
- Whether welfare of the victim, matrimonial harmony, and future prospects of the child can outweigh the retributive element of criminal law.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The man argued that exceptional circumstances warranted the invocation of Article 142. The victim, now his legally wedded spouse, wished to continue the marriage and avoid the stigma of being married to a convicted person. The birth of their child further strengthened the need for family stability. The petitioner submitted that continuing the conviction would destroy the marital unit and inflict greater harm on the victim than the original offence. He emphasised that courts have, on unique facts, exercised extraordinary powers to prevent injustice resulting from rigid application of statutory provisions.
Respondent’s Arguments
The State argued that the offence was grave and statutory policy does not allow compromise in cases involving minors. The State contended that the conviction could not be lightly brushed aside simply because the parties sought reconciliation. However, after interacting with the victim’s parent, the State conveyed that the complainant family had no objection to closure. The State acknowledged that the Court may consider exercising Article 142 in rare and compelling circumstances. The State Legal Services Authority’s report, confirming the victim’s well-being and stable family life, played a significant role in tipping the balance.
Analysis of the Law
The Supreme Court re-emphasised Cardinal principles:
• Offences of this nature injure not just individuals but society.
• Criminal law is the sovereignty of society seeking collective protection.
• However, justice is not blind to human realities.
• Article 142 exists to prevent injustice caused by inflexible statutory schemes.
The Court underlined that strict adherence to legislative bars is essential, but Article 142 acts as “a constitutional safety valve” to be deployed only when justice cannot be achieved otherwise. The Court noted that neither the Trial Court nor the High Court had the constitutional authority to quash the conviction — only the Supreme Court possesses such plenary power.
The judges highlighted that administration of justice demands balance, combining deterrence with compassion where the victim herself seeks closure. The absence of coercion, the adult status of the victim, her affidavit, and her parental support were essential factors.
Precedent Analysis
While the Court did not cite multiple earlier authorities in detail, it reaffirmed two foundational strands of jurisprudence:
Article 142 Jurisprudence on Complete Justice
Earlier binding precedents interpret Article 142 as a remedy to prevent injustice flowing from procedural or substantive rigidity. The present case applied this doctrine to protect familial harmony.
POCSO Scheme and Its Rationale
The Court reiterated that ordinarily such offences cannot be quashed or compromised. However, drawing from earlier jurisprudence, it held that extraordinary facts permit extraordinary solutions, especially when continuation of proceedings harms — not helps — the victim.
Thus, the precedent applied here: complete justice overrides strict legislative bars only in unique and compelling circumstances, and the Court explicitly declared that this order “shall not be treated as a precedent.”
Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court concluded that:
• Criminal law exists to protect society, but its implementation cannot be divorced from lived social realities.
• The victim’s unambiguous wish to sustain the marriage and safeguard her child’s future was paramount.
• The complainant (her parent) openly supported closure.
• Continued incarceration would produce greater harm to the victim and child than the alleged crime itself.
• The offence, though technically grave, arose “not from lust but from a relationship of love,” making the case distinguishable from typical predatory offences.
• This was a rare case where justice, rehabilitation, and social harmony outweighed retribution.
The Court therefore held that “the law must yield to the cause of justice” and invoked Article 142 to quash all proceedings.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court quashed the conviction and sentence entirely, invoking Article 142 in a carefully circumscribed exercise of constitutional power. The man was discharged from surrender obligations and freed from all criminal liability. However, the Court imposed a strict lifelong condition: he shall not desert his wife or child and must maintain them with dignity. Any future complaint by them will invite severe consequences.
The Court emphasised that this judgment is specific to its unique facts and cannot be cited as precedent.
Implications
• Reinforces Article 142 as a tool for restorative justice in extraordinary circumstances.
• Confirms that victim welfare and matrimonial harmony may outweigh punishment in rare cases.
• Acknowledges the social reality that rigid application of criminal law may sometimes harm the very person it seeks to protect.
• Stresses that child welfare is central to criminal justice outcomes.
• Clarifies that such orders cannot be read broadly as precedents for quashing convictions in serious offences.
