[2025] 7 S.C.R. 216
(Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2023), delivered on 23 May 2025.
Core Issue
The Supreme Court addressed the complex issues surrounding the sentencing of an accused convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, the rehabilitation of the victim and her child, and the broader need for measures concerning adolescent well-being and child protection, particularly in cases involving “love affairs” where the victim is a minor.
Factual Background
The case involved a fourteen-year-old girl (victim) who left her home in May 2018 and married the accused, subsequently giving birth to their child45. Her mother lodged a First Information Report (FIR), and the accused was later convicted by a Special Judge under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for twenty years6.
The High Court, however, set aside the conviction, noting that the victim’s mother had disowned her and that the victim continued to reside with the accused and their child, purporting to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)78. The Supreme Court, in a prior judgment on 20 August 2024, set aside the High Court’s acquittal and restored the conviction of the accused under Section 376(2)(n) and 376(3) IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, but postponed sentencing79.
Supreme Court’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court’s current judgment focused on sentencing and rehabilitation, noting a “systemic failure of the State to protect the victim”210. It found that the victim, abandoned by her family and lacking State support, was compelled to seek shelter with the accused and did not have the opportunity to make an informed choice about her future11.
Crucially, the Court highlighted the findings of an expert Committee it had appointed:
• The Committee’s final report concluded that although the incident was a crime “in law,” the victim herself “did not treat it as one”1213.
• The trauma inflicted on the victim was not from the “legal crime” but from the subsequent “legal battle” and the financial and emotional burden she faced while trying to save her husband and care for her daughter13…. The victim spent significant amounts, incurring substantial debt, to defend the accused, often being exploited in the process1517.
• The victim, now showing maturity, wishes to continue residing with the accused and is committed to her small family1718.
Acknowledging that sending the accused to jail would cause further injustice and trauma to the victim, and in the interest of “complete justice” and to ensure the family unit stays intact, the Supreme Court invoked its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution19…. The Court underscored the failure of the “welfare state” to provide social and economic justice to the victim1225.
Final Outcome and Directions
The Supreme Court, while upholding the conviction, decided that the accused will not undergo sentence1924. This decision was emphasised as not a precedent but an illustration of the systemic failure23. The Court issued several wide-ranging directions to the State of West Bengal:
• Rehabilitation of the Family:
◦ The State is to act as a true guardian of the victim and her child1924.
◦ Provide a better shelter for the family1924.
◦ Bear the entire expenditure of the victim’s education up to Xth standard and, if she desires, a degree course1926.
◦ Offer the victim free vocational training after her Xth standard1926.
◦ Bear the entire expenditure of the child’s education up to Xth standard in a very good school1926.
◦ Endeavour to assist in securing the debts incurred by the victim with the help of NGOs or public-spirited citizens1926.
• Systemic Reforms:
◦ The State is to file compliance reports periodically1927.
◦ The Secretary, Ministry of Women and Child Development, Union of India, is to appoint a Committee of experts to deal with suggestions from the amici curiae19…. These suggestions included adopting comprehensive sexuality education, implementing a structured data collection mechanism for institutional accountability, and ensuring better support systems for adolescents31….
The Court expressed its heavy heart for the “unsolved crime” but asserted that feelings of consternation or desperation cannot justify a conviction without legal evidence, warning against “purely moral conviction”34.
