Should the Supreme Court Invoke Article 142 to Quash Conviction for a Heinous POCSO Offence Post-Marriage and Victim’s Consent?

Summary

Practical Impact

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

• The Supreme Court may deploy Article 142 to quash even convictions for heinous offences when subsequent events (marriage, child) and victim’s consent justify compassionate intervention.
• A “compromise” or post-offence marriage with the victim can be a material consideration in quashing proceedings, even under the POCSO Act.
• Quashing under Article 142 can be conditional—here, life-long non-desertion and maintenance obligations were imposed.
• This judgment underscores the Court’s power to tailor relief for rehabilitation and social harmony, while cautioning that it does not set binding precedent.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

1. Societal Purpose of Criminal Law

   • Recognized crime as a wrong against society; punishment and deterrence reflect sovereign will.
   • Emphasized need for a nuanced, context-sensitive approach to justice.

2. Extraordinary Power under Article 142

   • Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to “do complete justice” where rigid law application causes injustice.
   • This constitutional power is separate from statutory and inherent powers.

3. Balancing Competing Interests

   • Weighed deterrence and public interest against rehabilitation, marital harmony, and the child’s welfare.
   • Held that continued prosecution would disrupt the family unit and harm social order.

4. Assessment of Unique Facts

   • Marriage between appellant and victim, birth of their infant, and unconditional consent of the victim and her father.
   • Crime was found to stem from “love,” not predatory intent—though still “heinous.”

5. Conclusion and Conditions

   • Quashed conviction and sentence under Article 142.
   • Imposed conditions: appellant must maintain wife and child and not desert them—default to attract consequences.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner (Appellant)

• Married the victim during pendency of appeal; they are parents to an infant.
• Victim dependent and wishes to live peacefully with him.
• Continued prosecution disrupts marital harmony and child’s welfare.
• Seeks invocation of Article 142 to quash conviction and sentence.

Respondent (Father of Victim)

• Stated through counsel that he has no objection to ending the criminal proceedings.

Factual Background

The appellant was convicted under Section 366 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (5 and 10 years), with both convictions upheld by the High Court. While the appeal was pending, the appellant married the victim in May 2021; they have since had a male child. The victim filed an affidavit affirming her dependence and desire to lead a peaceful family life. Her father also recorded no objection to quashing the criminal proceedings.

Statutory Analysis

• Section 6, POCSO Act: Penal provision for penetrative sexual assault on a minor; generally non-compoundable.
• Article 142, Constitution of India: Grants the Supreme Court power to pass any decree or order necessary to do “complete justice” in any cause or matter pending before it, even if outside strict statutory provisions.
• The Court treated Article 142 as a constitutional override enabling quashing of convictions in exceptional cases, while still preserving legislative intent on serious offences by imposing conditions.

Procedural Innovations

• Affirmation that Article 142 can be exercised in criminal appeals to quash convictions for non-heinous aspects of offences when offset by strong rehabilitative factors.
• Introduction of life-long conditional maintenance obligations directly ordered by the Supreme Court as part of relief under Article 142.