Invoking Article 142 of the Constitution, which empowers the apex court to pass any order necessary to ensure “complete justice” in a pending matter, a bench comprising Justices J K Maheshwari and Atul S Chandurkar set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the man.
According to the case record, the man and the woman had fallen in love while she was studying in Class 12. The relationship later deteriorated when the man allegedly refused to marry her. Following this, the woman filed a complaint against him, leading to his prosecution and eventual conviction under the POCSO Act for maintaining physical relations with a minor. He was subsequently sentenced to 10 years of imprisonment.
The woman later married another man. However, that marriage ended within days after her husband became aware of her previous relationship. During the period when the accused was out on bail, the two reconciled, renewed their relationship, and eventually married each other.
Following their marriage, the couple began living together. The woman subsequently approached the Madras High Court seeking the annulment of her husband’s conviction under the POCSO Act. However, the High Court rejected her plea, prompting the couple to move the Supreme Court for relief.
While hearing the matter, the Supreme Court observed that the appellant and the victim are now free to live peacefully in society as spouses. Without examining the merits of the original conviction, the bench considered the unique circumstances of the case and exercised its plenary powers under Article 142.
“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 of the POCSO Act, and the appellant is acquitted from the charge,” the bench stated.
The court further clarified that the order had been passed solely in view of the exceptional facts and circumstances of the matter and would not serve as a precedent in any other case.
The apex court also noted that the substantive jail sentence imposed on the appellant had already been suspended by the High Court through its order dated June 3, 2019. Consequently, it ruled that he would not be required to surrender unless wanted in connection with any other case.
The ruling highlights the Supreme Court’s willingness to invoke its constitutional authority under Article 142 in exceptional circumstances to ensure complete justice, while simultaneously emphasizing that such relief remains confined to the unique facts of the individual case and should not be interpreted as a broader legal precedent.
About The Author
Comment List