The Supreme Court of India declined to sentence a POCSO convict, citing the victim’s opposition to punishment and her current marital relationship with the accused. Learn about the landmark ruling under Article 142 and its implications on the legal system.

Landmark Supreme Court Ruling Under Article 142

On Friday, May 23, the Supreme Court of India ruled against sentencing a man convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The bench, invoking its authority under Article 142 of the Constitution, noted that the victim—now an adult and married to the convict—did not view the incident as a crime.

Victim Faced More Harm from Legal and Social Fallout

The Court emphasized that although the act was legally an offense, the victim did not perceive it as such. According to the official report, the victim endured greater trauma from the legal and societal consequences rather than the act itself. Her struggle involved navigating police procedures, enduring court trials, and fighting to protect her husband from conviction.

Emotional Bond and Current Family Life Influenced Decision

The accused married the victim following the incident, and they now live together with their child. The bench, comprising Justices Abhay Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, recognized the deep emotional connection the victim had developed with the convict. She had become, as noted, “very possessive about her small family.”

Court Highlights Systemic Failures in Justice Delivery

This judgment also spotlighted the failures of the legal system, society, and the victim’s own family. The Court remarked that “her own family abandoned her, the legal system failed her, and society judged her,” thereby denying her the opportunity to make informed decisions earlier.

Instructions to State and Ministry of Women and Child Development

Alongside the ruling, the Court issued preliminary instructions to the State Government and sent a notice to the Ministry of Women and Child Development. These directives aim to address the recommendations provided by the Amicus Curiae, with more detailed orders to follow upon release of the final judgment.

Conclusion: A Controversial Yet Eye-Opening Judicial Precedent

The Supreme Court’s decision to forgo sentencing in this POCSO Act case has ignited important conversations around justice, victim agency, and the limitations of the current legal framework. By exercising its powers under Article 142, the Court prioritized context, emotional well-being, and the wishes of the now-adult victim over rigid legal formalism.

This ruling not only exposes the challenges victims face in the aftermath of such cases but also calls for urgent reform and sensitivity within the judicial system. As the nation reflects on this precedent, it remains critical to balance the rule of law with compassion, autonomy, and societal accountability.