Case: Maruthupandi v. State represented by Inspector of Police & Anr.

Factual Background

The appellant was convicted by the Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri, under Section 5(1) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment for having repeated sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix while she was a minor. His conviction was upheld by the High Court, though his sentence was suspended during the pendency of the appeal. Subsequently, the victim approached the High Court seeking permission to adduce additional evidence, stating that she and the appellant had resolved their differences and wished to continue their lives together. The High Court declined the request, following which the appellant approached the Supreme Court.

During the proceedings before the Supreme Court, the victim’s statements were recorded on multiple occasions before the Judicial Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In her first statement, she reiterated that the appellant had engaged in sexual intercourse with her on the promise of marriage while she was a minor and that she had lodged the complaint after he initially refused to marry her. In a subsequent statement, however, she disclosed that after the breakdown of her intervening marriage, she had eventually married the appellant in December 2024 and was living with him. She also expressed her desire to bring an end to the criminal proceedings. Pursuant to the Court’s directions, the appellant paid ₹10 lakhs to the victim as financial security, which she acknowledged receiving before confirming her willingness to have the conviction set aside.

Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court considered the unique factual developments that had occurred after the conviction. It noted that the victim, now a major, had voluntarily and consistently affirmed before the Magistrate, the Registrar (Judicial), and the Court that she had married the appellant of her own free will, had accepted the compensation amount, and wished to end the litigation. The Court also observed that the State did not seriously oppose the relief sought, provided the order was confined to the peculiar facts of the case and was not treated as a precedent.

Without examining the correctness of the conviction on merits, the Court invoked its plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice between the parties. It held that the subsequent marriage between the parties, their decision to continue their marital relationship, and the financial security provided to the victim constituted exceptional circumstances warranting interference. The Court was of the view that setting aside the conviction would secure the social and familial stability of the parties while bringing quietus to a dispute that had undergone significant changes after the trial. At the same time, the Court expressly cautioned that the order was rendered solely in view of the extraordinary facts before it and should not be regarded as laying down any legal principle applicable to other POCSO prosecutions.

Order of the Court

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and, in exercise of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant under the POCSO Act. The appellant was acquitted of the charges and permitted to continue living with the victim as her spouse. The Court clarified that the decision was confined to the peculiar facts of the case and would not operate as a precedent.

Key Takeaway

The judgment illustrates the Supreme Court’s exceptional use of its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice in a POCSO case where subsequent events fundamentally altered the circumstances of the parties. While recognising the statutory seriousness of offences under the POCSO Act, the Court emphasized that its decision was based exclusively on the unique facts of the case and should not be construed as permitting compromise or settlement in similar prosecutions

Written by Adv. K. Sri Hamsa