Love, Not Lust - POCSO Conviction Quashed as Victim Becomes Wife: Supreme Court Says Law Must Serve, Not Destroy, Families

“Continuation of the criminal proceedings and the appellant’s incarceration would only disrupt this familial unit and cause irreparable harm to the victim, the infant child, and the fabric of society itself” – Supreme Court On 28th October 2025, the Supreme Court of India, in a significant and compassionate ruling in K. Kirubakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash the conviction and sentence of a man under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The Court acted in view of the “unique circumstances” that had developed post-conviction, primarily the marriage between the appellant and the victim and the birth of their child, holding that justice must be humane and responsive to ground realities.

The judgment authored by Justice Dipankar Datta, with Justice Augustine George Masih on the Bench, emphasized that rigid enforcement of law should not lead to injustice, especially where restorative justice and familial welfare are at stake.

“This is a case where the law must yield to the cause of justice” – Court Explains Invocation of Article 142

The appellant, K. Kirubakaran, was convicted under Section 366 IPC (Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act (Aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a child). He was sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment under POCSO and 5 years under IPC, as per the judgment of the High Court of Madras on 13th September 2021, which dismissed his appeal.

However, before the High Court’s decision, the appellant had married the victim in May 2021, and later, they were blessed with a male child, as confirmed in a report by the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority (TNSLSA). The victim, now the appellant’s wife, submitted an affidavit expressing her wish to continue living peacefully with her husband and child, opposing further continuation of criminal proceedings.

The father of the victim, who was the original complainant, appeared virtually before the Court and conveyed no objection to the closure of proceedings.

“The crime was not the result of lust but love” – Balancing Justice, Deterrence, and Rehabilitation

The central question before the Court was whether criminal proceedings arising from a conviction under the non-compoundable POCSO Act could be quashed by the Supreme Court in exercise of its constitutional powers under Article 142, given the rehabilitative and familial developments in the case.

The Court acknowledged the serious nature of POCSO offences, stating:

“A crime is not merely a wrong against an individual but against society as a whole… the criminal law is, thus, a manifestation of the sovereign will of society.”

But at the same time, it reminded that administration of law must remain sensitive to human realities:

“The law aims to ensure not just punishment of the guilty, but also harmony and restoration of the social order.”

Observing that the appellant and victim were now married and parenting a child, the Court considered the emotional and social stakes involved.

“While considering the offence committed by the appellant punishable under the POCSO Act, we have discerned that the crime was not the result of lust but love.”

Hence, continuing to uphold the conviction would mean "irreparably harming the wife and child", contrary to the goals of justice.

Statutory Bar Does Not Limit Article 142: Quashing of POCSO Conviction Is Permissible in Exceptional Circumstances

Though POCSO offences are statutorily barred from being compounded, the Supreme Court emphasized that its constitutional power under Article 142 stands on a different footing. In the Court’s view, the cry for compassion by the victim-wife and the potential harm to the child and family unit required a non-traditional and humane approach.

Quoting the Constitution’s intent, the Court remarked:

“The founding fathers of the Constitution conferred this Court with the extraordinary power to do ‘complete justice’ in proper cases… to avoid situations of injustice being caused by the rigid application of law.”

Thus, it held that in such “exceptional and unique” facts, a statutory bar to compounding heinous offences cannot override the constitutional authority to do complete justice:

“We are, thus, persuaded to hold that this is a case where the law must yield to the cause of justice.”

Accordingly, the Court quashed the conviction and sentence, making it clear that:

“This order is rendered in the unique circumstances… and shall not be treated as a precedent for any other case.”

Conditional Relief: Marital Responsibility Enforced as Ongoing Legal Duty

Significantly, while granting relief, the Supreme Court did not grant the appellant unconditional exoneration. It imposed a continuing legal obligation:

“We deem it appropriate to subject the appellant to the specific condition of not deserting his wife and child and also to maintain them for the rest of their life with dignity.”

The Court warned that any future default on the appellant’s part could attract further judicial intervention, thus ensuring accountability in exchange for leniency.

The interim relief converting exemption from surrender into absolute discharge of bail bonds was made permanent, bringing the matter to a close while protecting the welfare of the wife and child.

In this rare and non-precedential exercise of constitutional authority, the Supreme Court quashed a conviction under the POCSO Act, prioritizing rehabilitative justice and familial harmony over rigid statutory punishment. The decision demonstrates the Court’s evolving and sensitive approach towards restorative justice, especially in marriage-like relationships that have emerged post-conviction, provided such developments are voluntary, verifiable, and protective of the victim’s dignity.

While the judgment does not dilute the seriousness of sexual offences, it carefully tailors relief where legal punishment would paradoxically inflict more harm than justice.