Supreme Court quashes POCSO case against man using extraordinary power

Invoking its extraordinary authority under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has quashed the conviction of a man sentenced under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act after noting that the victim has married the accused on attaining the age of majority.

Article 142 of the Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary for doing "complete justice" in any cause pending before it to ensure justice. In this case, the man and the woman fell in love while she was studying in Class XII.

When he refused to marry her, she had filed a complaint against the man resulting in him being sentenced to 10 years under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act for having physical relations with a minor.

The woman later married another man, who left her days after he came to know of her previous relationship. While out on bail, the man reconciled with her and they both married and started living together.

After their marriage, the couple started living together and thereafter the woman moved the Madras High Court seeking to set aside conviction of her husband under POCSO Act. The High Court, however, rejected her plea which prompted the couple to move the Supreme Court.

A Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar said the appellant and the victim are free to live their life peacefully in society as spouse.

"Without entering into the merits of the case, in the peculiar facts, we deem it appropriate to exercise our plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the judgment of conviction and sentence of the appellant... for the charge under Section 5(1) of POCSO Act and the appellant is acquitted from the charge," the Bench said.

The Supreme Court said the order has been passed in the peculiar facts of the case and will not be treated as a precedent for any other purpose. "As the substantive jail sentence of the appellant was suspended by the High Court vide order dated June 3, 2019, he need not surrender until required in any other case," the Bench added.