It Was Not the Legal Crime That Traumatized Her – It Was the System’s Response: Supreme Court Slams High Court for Quashing POCSO Conviction

“The society judged her, the legal system failed her, and her own family abandoned her.” - Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark judgment in Suo Motu Writ Petition, underscoring the grave failures of the state, society, and legal system in protecting the rights and dignity of a minor rape victim. While convicting the accused under stringent provisions of the POCSO Act and IPC, the Court, invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142, chose not to impose the statutory sentence. It declared this decision necessary to avoid inflicting further trauma on the now-adult victim who, against all odds, continues to fight for her small family’s survival and dignity.

In a judgment as unprecedented as it is introspective, the Supreme Court, led by Justices Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan, restored the conviction of a man under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 376(2)(n) and 376(3) of the IPC while deferring the sentence in the interest of justice to the victim—a minor at the time of the offence. The decision came as part of a suo motu writ triggered by disturbing observations in a Calcutta High Court ruling that had acquitted the accused citing his relationship with the victim and her continued cohabitation with him.

The victim, aged just 14, had eloped with the 25-year-old accused in May 2018. A child was later born out of this relationship. Her parents, particularly her mother, disowned her, and no support system—neither legal nor social—stepped in to protect or rehabilitate her. A complaint was lodged only after nine days, and the accused was arrested more than three years later in December 2021. In the meantime, the girl was abandoned by her family, compelled to return to the accused’s home, and gave birth to a child. During the trial, the Special Judge convicted the accused, but the Calcutta High Court shockingly quashed the conviction, a decision the Supreme Court later overturned.

The central legal question was whether the High Court was justified in exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 read with Section 482 CrPC to set aside the POCSO conviction on grounds of consent and ongoing cohabitation. The Supreme Court categorically held that:

“Even if the accused and the victim…were to come out with a settlement, the High Court could not have quashed the prosecution.”

The Court emphasized that crimes such as rape or offences under the POCSO Act cannot be sanitized through later settlements or ongoing relationships, reiterating its ruling in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab.

More importantly, the Court launched a scathing critique of the systemic breakdown that allowed a minor girl to be victimized twice—first by the act and then by the apathy of her family and state. It noted:

“The society judged her, the legal system failed her, and her own family abandoned her.”

The Justices described the failure to comply with Section 19(6) of the POCSO Act—which mandates that victims be brought under the protective ambit of the Juvenile Justice Act—as a constitutional breach of her rights under Article 21.

“Not the Crime, But the Legal System Traumatized Her”

In a deeply poignant observation, the Court recognized that the victim, now a young woman, did not consider herself a “victim” of the crime per se but of the ensuing legal battle. As the final committee report put it:

“In this case, the law saw it as a crime, the victim did not... A young woman, who refuses to be called a ‘Victim’, fighting for her husband needs all the support that can be made available.”

The Committee revealed that the girl had been financially exploited while defending her partner. She paid over ₹2 lakhs in legal fees and bribes, including payments to touts promising bail and favorable outcomes.

“Though the victim did not treat the incident as a heinous crime, she suffered because of it.”

Faced with a legal mandate to impose a 20-year sentence under the POCSO Act, the Court invoked Article 142 to decline enforcement of the sentence, stating that imprisonment would irreparably damage the life of the victim who now depends on the accused for emotional and economic survival.

“If we send the accused to jail, the worst sufferer will be the victim herself.”

This use of Article 142—employed sparingly and with solemnity—was justified on the grounds of “complete justice.” The Court emphasized this was not a precedent but a human response to an exceptional failure of multiple institutions.

Acknowledging the duty of the State as a welfare agent, the Court ordered comprehensive support:

• Continued education for the victim up to graduation or vocational training.
• Good-quality education and nutrition for her child under ICDS and Mission Vatsalya.
• Better shelter and debt-relief assistance through NGOs.
• Regular compliance reports from the State.
• A national committee under the Ministry of Women and Child Development to study systemic failures and suggest policy changes, especially around adolescent sexual education and data monitoring mechanisms.

This case marks a watershed in Indian jurisprudence—not merely for its nuanced application of sentencing discretion but for its blistering commentary on societal apathy and systemic decay. It reflects a rare judicial candor in admitting that sometimes the justice system, in its cold proceduralism, might become the second perpetrator.

Date of Decision: May 23, 2025