The Supreme Court recently set aside a conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, after the accused and the victim arrived at a settlement by marrying each other and after the accused offered her compensation.
A bench comprising Justice JK Maheshwari and Justice Atul S Chandurkar set aside the conviction invoking its special powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. The Court took note of the peculiar circumstances of the case that the accused and the victim solemnised their marriage after the victim attained the age of majority. The Court also ordered the accused to pay Rs. 10,00,000 to the victim as compensation.
Clarifying that the order shall not be treated as precedent, the Court observed: "Accordingly, the appeals are allowed and on the basis of subsequent events the conviction and sentence as directed by Sessions Court confirmed by the High Court stand set aside. The appellant and the victim are left free to live their life peacefully in society as spouse."
To briefly state, the appellant-accused was convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court under Sections 5(1) and 6 of the POCSO Act for a period of 10 years in 2019. An appeal was filed before the Madras High Court, which suspended his jail sentence.
Subsequently, the victim filed a quashing petition and prayed for further examination. In an affidavit sworn, she declared that she and the accused had been living together for the past four years, that she wanted to put a quietus to the matter, and that she sought to set aside his conviction. This was rejected by the High Court in 2021.
Being dissatisfied with the order, the accused filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, which directed that the victim may be allowed to record her Section 164 CrPC statement. Her statement was recorded, but since it was not clear whether the parties had married, the Court, vide an order dated November 28, 2024, directed that the victim's statement be recorded again by the Magistrate.
As per her statement, the appellant had intercourse with her on the promise to marry, but later refused. She then filed a police complaint but eventually got married to another man. However, when the other man got to know about her relationship with the appellant, he left her, and she stayed with her father. Eventually, the appellant's family approached her to marry the appellant, and they got married in 2024.
On April 6, when the matter was taken up, the Court was informed that the victim would not like to contest the litigation any further if she is paid Rs. 10,00,000 as the security of her life. The case was listed again, wherein the Court was informed that the amount had been paid by the appellant, and a statement in furtherance of this was recorded by the Registrar(Judicial).
Considering the State Government's position that it doesn't have any reservations if the conviction is set aside provided it's not treated as precedent, and the ov