Summary of the Judgment

On May 23, 2025, the Supreme Court of India exercised its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to refrain from sentencing a man convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The decision was based on the unique circumstances of the case, where the victim, now an adult, had married the accused and had a child with him. The Court noted that the victim did not perceive the incident as a crime and had suffered more due to the legal and social consequences that followed. The Court emphasized that the victim had been abandoned by her family, judged by society, and had become emotionally attached to the accused. In light of these factors, the Court decided not to impose a sentence, aiming to do complete justice in the case.

Facts of the Case

The case involved a 14-year-old girl who was sexually assaulted by a 25-year-old man in 2018. Following the incident, the victim was compelled to marry the accused, and they now have a child together. The accused was initially convicted under the POCSO Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for aggravated sexual assault and rape. However, the Calcutta High Court acquitted the accused, making controversial remarks about adolescent sexuality and advising girls to control their sexual urges. The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the High Court’s judgment, set aside the acquittal, and restored the conviction. The Court then directed the West Bengal Government to constitute a three-member expert committee to assess the victim’s situation and assist her in making an informed decision about her future.

Contentions of the Petitioner

The petitioner, the State of West Bengal, contended that the High Court’s acquittal was based on unwarranted remarks about adolescent girls’ sexual behaviour and that such observations were not only objectionable but also violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. The petitioner argued that the High Court had overstepped its judicial role by advising adolescents to control their sexual urges and by suggesting that the POCSO Act should be amended to decriminalize consensual sexual acts involving adolescents above 16 years of age. The petitioner emphasized that the legal provisions under the POCSO Act were clear and should be applied without personal opinions or moral judgments.

Contentions of the Respondent

The respondent, the convicted man, argued that the relationship with the victim was consensual and that they had married and were living together as a family. He contended that the victim did not consider the incident a crime and had suffered more due to the legal proceedings and societal judgment than from the incident itself. The respondent emphasized that the victim had been emotionally attached to him and had become very possessive about their small family.

Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court observed that the facts of the case highlighted significant lacunae in the legal system. The Court noted that the victim had no opportunity to make an informed choice earlier due to shortcomings in society, the legal system, and her own family. The Court emphasized that the victim had been subjected to trauma and agony due to the legal proceedings and societal judgment. The Court also observed that the victim was now emotionally committed to the accused and had become very possessive of her small family. The Court highlighted the importance of rehabilitation of victims of offences under the POCSO Act and noted that this aspect had been overlooked by all stakeholders.

Court’s Order

The Supreme Court decided not to impose a sentence on the accused, exercising its powers under Article 142 to do complete justice in the case. The Court directed the West Bengal Government to provide quality education to the victim’s child and to explore the possibility of vocational training or part-time employment for the victim after she completes her 10th Board exams. The Court also directed that its judgment be forwarded to Law and Justice Departments across all States and Union Territories to ensure strict implementation of Section 19(6) of the POCSO Act and relevant provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act.

Regressive Nature of the Calcutta High Court Judgment

The Calcutta High Court’s judgment was regressive as it made sweeping and unwarranted remarks about adolescent girls’ sexual behavior, advising them to control their sexual urges and suggesting that they would be the “loser” in society if they gave in to “two minutes of pleasure.” These remarks amounted to victim-shaming and perpetuated stereotypes about female sexuality. The High Court’s suggestion to amend the POCSO Act to decriminalize consensual sexual acts involving adolescents above 16 years of age was also controversial and not supported by the law. The Supreme Court rightly set aside these remarks and emphasized that judges should base their decisions on law and facts, not personal opinions or moral judgments.

Hopeful Shift in Narrative

The Supreme Court’s judgment in this case signifies a hopeful shift in the narrative surrounding victim-blaming. By refraining from sentencing the accused and focusing on the rehabilitation and welfare of the victim, the Court acknowledged the complexities of such cases and the need for a compassionate and nuanced approach. The Court’s emphasis on the victim’s emotional attachment to her family and the trauma caused by the legal proceedings highlights the importance of considering the victim’s perspective and well-being. This approach sets a precedent for future cases, encouraging a more empathetic and victim-centered approach to justice.

Credits: Adv. Deeksha Rai