Supreme Court Sets Aside POCSO Conviction Under Article 142 After Victim Marries Accused and Receives Rs 10 Lakh
A Division Bench invoked Article 142 to quash a ten-year POCSO sentence after the victim married the convict and received Rs 10 lakh compensation, expressly barring the order from being treated as precedent.
The Supreme Court on 26 May 2026 set aside the conviction and ten-year sentence of Maruthupandi, who had been found guilty under Section 5(1) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 by the Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri. A Division Bench of Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar exercised plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution, citing the peculiar facts that the victim — now an adult — had married the appellant on 05 December 2024, received Rs 10 lakh in compensation, and expressly stated she wished to put quietus to the litigation. The Court was careful to record that the order would not be treated as a precedent for any other case.
From Trial Court Conviction to the Supreme Court
The Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri convicted Maruthupandi in Special S.C. No. 43 of 2015 on 12 April 2019, sentencing him to ten years' imprisonment and a fine. The conviction arose from a complaint filed by the victim, who alleged that the appellant had sexual intercourse with her while she was a minor, after promising to marry her. When he refused to marry her, she filed a complaint at Harur All Women Police Station.
Maruthupandi challenged the conviction before the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 258 of 2019. The High Court suspended the jail sentence on 03 June 2019. While the appeal was pending, the victim filed an application under Section 482 read with Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking to record her deposition before the High Court. She filed an affidavit dated 08 February 2021 stating that she and the appellant had been living together for four years, that the matter had been settled, and that she wished to depose in his favour so that the conviction could be set aside and they could live peacefully. The High Court rejected that application, Criminal M.P. No. 3209 of 2021, on 16 March 2021.
Maruthupandi then approached the Supreme Court by way of two special leave petitions — SLP (Crl.) No. 2782 of 2021 challenging the rejection of the additional evidence application, and SLP (Crl.) No. 4907 of 2021. Leave was granted and the matters were heard together as criminal appeals.
The Court's Directions to Record the Victim's Statement
Counsel for the appellant submitted before the Supreme Court that the first information report had been lodged on account of misunderstanding and confusion, that the parties had been in a relationship since 2012, and that both before the trial court and before the High Court, applications had been filed disclosing a compromise and a marriage between them. The trial court had dismissed the application for additional evidence.
On 22 November 2022, the Court directed that the victim record her statement before a Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It directed that the concerned probation officer accompany the victim, that the appellant not influence or accompany her, and that the Magistrate put specific questions about where the victim was residing and the date and manner of any alleged marriage. The Magistrate was to complete the process within three weeks and forward the report to the Court.
The victim's statement was recorded on 02 December 2022 before the Judicial Magistrate, Harur. In answer to question 17, she narrated that the appellant had promised to marry her and had sexual intercourse with her multiple times while she was a minor. She stated that after he refused to marry her, she had consumed Arali seed and was hospitalised. She further disclosed that she had subsequently married one Mukesh Kumar from Salem in an arranged marriage, but that within three days of the marriage, her husband left her upon learning of the complaint against the appellant. At the time of that statement, she was living with her father and stated that the appellant's parents had approached her family about a possible marriage to the appellant.
The Court found that statement incomplete, as nothing could be elicited regarding any marriage with the appellant. On 28 November 2024, the Court directed that the victim's present status be ascertained. In her subsequent statement recorded before the Magistrate, the victim stated that she and the appellant had fallen in love ten years ago, that she had been compelled by her family to marry Mukesh, that Mukesh had left her after learning of the complaint, and that “my life is ruined because of Maruthupandi.” She then disclosed that her father and villagers had decided to get her married again to the appellant, and that the marriage was solemnised on 05 December 2024. She stated she was living with the appellant, who was then in Kerala for work.
The Compensation Arrangement and the Victim's Final Statement
On 06 April 2026, after the appellant and victim were directed to appear before the Court, the victim conceded that if the appellant paid Rs 10,00,000 towards the security of her life, she would not contest the litigation further and, after the conviction was set aside, would live with him. The appellant accepted and agreed to pay within one month.
When the matter was listed on 11 May 2026, the appellant had deposited only Rs 2 lakh and sought time until 22 May 2026 for the remaining Rs 8 lakh. On 22 May 2026, the victim appeared in Court and informed that she had received Rs 7,05,000 and that Rs 2,95,000 remained outstanding. The Court directed that her statement be recorded before the Registrar (Judicial) regarding her willingness upon receipt of the full amount.
In her statement before the Registrar (Judicial), the victim confirmed receipt of Rs 7,05,000 and stated that on receipt of the remaining Rs 2,95,000 she would put quietus to the litigation. On 26 May 2026, the victim joined the proceedings virtually. With the assistance of Ms. G. Priyadharshini, counsel well versed in Tamil, the Court interacted with her. She acknowledged all prior statements and their contents, specifically admitted receiving the full Rs 10,00,000, and stated she wished to put quietus to the litigation. She stated she had no objection to the conviction being set aside.
The Court's Reasoning Under Article 142
The State's counsel was unable to dispute the factual position. The State Government urged that the Court pass such order as it deemed fit, and stated it had no reservation if the conviction were set aside to secure the social order and the life of the two individuals — but requested that the order not be treated as a precedent.
The Court surveyed the sequence of events: the victim was a minor when the intercourse occurred; a complaint was made when the appellant refused to marry her; he was convicted after trial; his jail sentence was suspended by the High Court; the victim subsequently filed an affidavit in his favour; her first Magistrate statement did not disclose any marriage; her second statement disclosed that the marriage had been solemnised on 05 December 2024 after the families arranged it; and Rs 10 lakh had been paid to the victim as compensation.
The Court held that the appellant and victim had solemnised their marriage on attaining the age of majority and that the appellant had paid compensation for his guilt with the minor victim. On that basis, without entering into the merits of the case, the Court found it appropriate to exercise its plenary power under Article 142 of the Constitution to set aside the conviction and sentence under Section 5(1) of the POCSO Act and to acquit the appellant.
The Court expressly stated 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.”
Order
Both criminal appeals were allowed. The conviction and sentence directed by the Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court were set aside. The appellant and the victim were left free to live their life as spouses. Since the substantive jail sentence had been suspended by the High Court on 03 June 2019, the appellant was not required to surrender unless required in any other case, and his bail bond was discharged. Pending applications, if any, were disposed of.