Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court, exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, convicted the accused for offences under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 376(2)(n) and 376(3) IPC but suspended his sentence, stating:
“If we send the accused to jail, the worst sufferer will be the victim herself.”
The Court held that although a conviction was legally warranted, sending the accused to prison would compound the trauma of the adolescent victim and her child. The Court ordered the State to rehabilitate the victim’s family and constituted a committee to address broader issues concerning adolescent well-being and systemic failures under the POCSO and JJ Acts.
Facts
- The victim was 14 years old when she eloped with the accused in 2018.
- She was abandoned by her parents and later gave birth to a child.
- The Special POCSO Court convicted the accused for POCSO and IPC offences and sentenced him to 20 years RI under Section 6 POCSO and lesser terms under IPC Sections 363, 366.
- The Calcutta High Court later acquitted the accused under Article 226 and Section 482 CrPC.
- The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s acquittal and restored the conviction.
Issues
- Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the conviction under Article 226 read with Section 482 CrPC.
- How sentencing should be approached in cases involving adolescent consensual relationships.
- What rehabilitative measures must be adopted for victims under the POCSO Act.
- How systemic failures can be addressed to prevent similar occurrences.
Petitioner’s Arguments (State of West Bengal & Amici)
- The High Court’s interference under Section 482 CrPC was unsustainable for serious offences like rape under POCSO.
- The State did not oppose rehabilitative relief and supported fair sentencing after examining committee reports.
- Amici Curiae urged the Court to consider the victim’s well-being and highlighted gross failure of institutions, recommending a non-custodial sentence in the interests of justice.
Respondent’s Arguments
- The accused and victim wanted to continue cohabiting.
- The victim explicitly stated her desire to maintain the family unit and not undergo further trauma.
- Arguments were made that rigid application of POCSO in adolescent consensual relationships could defeat the law’s intent in some cases.
Analysis of the Law
- Section 6 POCSO and Section 376(2)(n), 376(3) IPC mandate minimum sentences.
- However, Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to do “complete justice” overriding statutory prescriptions in unique circumstances.
- The Court also analysed Section 482 CrPC and its improper invocation by the High Court for quashing convictions in serious offences.
Precedent Analysis
- Gian Singh v. State of Punjab (2012) 10 SCC 303: Held that for serious offences like rape, settlement has no legal sanction.
- K. Dhandapani v. State (2022), Sankar v. State of Tamil Nadu (2023): Recognised exceptions where POCSO sentence was reduced in light of consensual adolescent relationships under Article 142.
- Other High Court decisions (Delhi, Madras, Calcutta) held that consensual adolescent relationships may not meet the threshold of ‘assault’ under POCSO.
Court’s Reasoning
- The Court noted a “collective failure” of the victim’s family, society, and State machinery: “She had no option but to seek shelter where it was provided — in the house of the accused.”
- The legal system retraumatised the victim more than the crime itself: “It was not the legal crime that caused trauma, but the police, legal system and societal stigma.”
- The victim, now committed to her small family, had incurred over ₹2 lakh in legal expenses trying to free the accused.
- The child was also suffering separation anxiety and trauma during the father’s imprisonment.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court held:
“Though the accused stands convicted, he will not undergo sentence.”
- The Court restored the POCSO and IPC conviction but suspended punishment under Article 142, citing overriding interests of the victim’s welfare and desire to keep her family intact.
- The judgment is not to be treated as a precedent and is tailored solely to the extraordinary circumstances.
Implications
- Victim-Centric Justice: Marks a significant shift toward recognising the complex realities of adolescent victims in POCSO cases.
- Limits of Judicial Leniency: Reinforces that while convictions are mandatory, sentencing can be moulded in rare cases using Article 142.
- Institutional Reform: The Court directed the State and Union Government to implement systemic reforms under the POCSO and JJ Acts, including:
- Data collection dashboards,
- Comprehensive sex education,
- Effective village-level child protection committees,
- Enhanced legal aid and support systems.