In a rare exercise of its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has set aside the conviction of a man sentenced under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), after taking note of subsequent events including the victim’s marriage to the convict after attaining majority, her repeated statements expressing her desire to end the litigation, and the payment of Rs. 10 lakh towards securing her future.The Bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar made it clear that the order was passed in the peculiar facts of the case and “shall not be treated as a precedent for any other purpose.“The Court observed that without entering into the merits of the conviction, the extraordinary circumstances that had emerged during the pendency of proceedings justified invocation of Article 142 to do complete justice between the parties.Conviction Under POCSO And Subsequent ProceedingsThe appellant, Maruthupandi, had been convicted by the Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri on 12.05.2019 under Section 5(1) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment along with fine.The conviction arose from allegations that the appellant and the victim were in a romantic relationship while she was a minor and had engaged in sexual relations on the appellant’s promise to marry her. Following a complaint lodged by the victim, criminal proceedings were initiated and culminated in conviction.The appellant challenged the conviction before the Madras High Court, during which his sentence was suspended.Subsequently, the victim herself approached the High Court seeking permission to adduce additional evidence.Through an affidavit, she stated that she and the appellant had settled their differences, had been living together, and wished to continue their lives peacefully. She expressed her desire to support the appellant and sought setting aside of the conviction.However, the High Court rejected the application, prompting the appellant to approach the Supreme Court.During the proceedings before the Supreme Court, the victim’s evolving position became central to the case. Noting the unusual circumstances, the Court directed that her statement be recorded before a Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC.In her statement recorded on 02.12.2022, the victim stated that she had been in a relationship with the appellant while studying in Class XII and that he had repeatedly assured her that he would marry her.She stated:“He told me that he loved me and gave promise that he was going to marry me. By saying so, he had sexual intercourse with me for many times.”The victim further stated that when the appellant refused to marry her, she filed the complaint that eventually led to prosecution.Significantly, she also disclosed that she had subsequently married another person, Mukesh Kumar, but that marriage failed after her husband came to know about her earlier relationship with the appellant.She stated:“My husband Mukesh Kumar left me and sent me to my parent’s house.”The statement, however, did not clarify whether she had married the appellant. Finding that important aspects remained unclear, the Supreme Court directed a fresh inquiry.Pursuant to the Court’s directions, the victim’s second statement was recorded on 07.02.2025. This statement revealed a crucial development.The victim informed the Magistrate that after her marriage with Mukesh Kumar broke down, her family and village elders facilitated a marriage between her and the appellant.She stated:“My life is ruined because of Maruthupandi. Therefore, as I could not find any other life, my father and the villagers decided to get me married once again to Maruthupandi and got us married on 05.12.2024.”She further informed the Court:“Till now I am living with Maruthupandi only.”The disclosure fundamentally altered the nature of the proceedings, as the victim and the appellant had now married each other after attaining majority.The Supreme Court thereafter interacted directly with the parties.During the hearing, the victim expressed her willingness to bring an end to the litigation provided adequate financial security was ensured for her future. The Court recorded that she agreed not to oppose setting aside of the conviction if the appellant paid Rs. 10 lakh towards securing her life.The appellant accepted the proposal.Subsequently, payments were made in installments and the victim acknowledged receipt of the entire amount.In her statement before the Registrar (Judicial) of the Supreme Court, she confirmed receipt of Rs. 7.05 lakh initially and later informed the Court that the full amount of Rs. 10 lakh had been paid. The victim reiterated her desire to end all pending litigation and expressed no objection to the conviction being set aside.The Court interacted with the victim through virtual mode with the assistance of counsel conversant in Tamil. The Bench specifically verified the authenticity of her earlier statements and her willingness to end the criminal proceedings.The judgment records:“The victim acknowledged all the statements and their contents.”The Court further noted:“She has specifically admitted that she has received the amount of Rs 10,00,000/- and she wishes to put quietus to this litigation.”Importantly, the victim expressly stated that she had no objection if the conviction of the appellant was set aside.Supreme Court Invokes Article 142After considering the victim’s statements recorded on multiple occasions, the subsequent marriage between the parties, and the settlement amount paid by the appellant, the Court held that the case warranted exercise of its extraordinary constitutional powers.The Bench observed:“At this stage, without entering into the merits of the case, in the peculiar facts, as narrated above, we deem it appropriate to exercise our plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.”The Court noted that the victim and the appellant had solemnized marriage after attaining majority and that the victim had accepted compensation of Rs. 10 lakh.The Bench further observed:“Now as per subsequent statement, appellant and the victim have solemnised the marriage on attaining the age of majority and also received the amount of compensation for his guilt with minor victim.”The Court set aside both the conviction and sentence imposed under Section 5(1) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Allowing the appeal, the Court directed that the conviction recorded by the Sessions Court and affirmed by the High Court shall stand set aside.The Bench observed:“The appellant and the victim are left free to live their life peacefully in society as spouse.”Recognising the exceptional nature of the relief granted, the Court added an important caution:“We make it clear that the present order has been passed in the peculiar facts of the case, therefore, it will not be treated as a precedent for any other purpose.”The Court also directed that the appellant’s bail bonds stand discharged.Case DetailsCase: SLP (Crl. ) No. 2782 of 2021 and SLP (Crl. ) No. 4907 of 2021 Maruthupandi v. State represented by the Inspector of Police & Anr.Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. ChandurkarDate of Judgment: 26.05.2026(The author of this article, Vatsal Chandra is a Delhi-based Advocate practicing before the courts of Delhi NCR. )
