Supreme Court Quashes Conviction To Preserve Family Harmony, Imposes Lifelong Maintenance Condition

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih heard an appeal by an accused who had been convicted under Section 366 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment. The challenge to the conviction and sentence before the Madras High Court had been dismissed, and the appeal reached the Supreme Court after the parties solemnised marriage during the pendency of proceedings and a child was born to the couple.

The Court allowed the appeal and invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash the criminal proceedings, including conviction and sentence, while attaching a specific condition to protect the wife and child. The Court noted subsequent developments, directed that the appellant must not desert his wife and child and must maintain them “for the rest of their life with dignity,” and recorded an interim exemption from surrender and discharge from bail bonds. The Court observed a need to balance deterrence with rehabilitation and social harmony and recorded that the complainant (father of the victim) had stated that he had “no objection” to bringing the proceedings to an end. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Per the law made by the legislature, the appellant having been found guilty of a heinous offence, the proceedings in the present case on the basis of a compromise between the appellant and his wife cannot be quashed. But ignoring the cry of the appellant’s wife for compassion and empathy will not, in our opinion, serve the ends of justice. Even the most serious offenders of law do receive justice moderated by compassion from the courts, albeit in appropriate cases. Given the peculiar facts and circumstances here, a balanced approach combining practicality and empathy is necessary. The appellant and the victim are not only legally married, they are also in their family way. 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. The victim of crime herself has expressed her desire to live a peaceful and stable family life with the appellant, upon whom she is dependent, without the appellant carrying the indelible mark on his forehead of being an offender. 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."

Background The appellant was convicted for offences under Section 366 IPC and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five and ten years respectively, with fine. The Madras High Court dismissed his appeal on 13 September 2021. While the appeal was pending, the accused married the victim in May 2021; thereafter the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority (TNSLSA) was directed to ascertain the well‑being of the appellant’s wife. A TNSLSA report recorded that the couple were living together with a male infant under one year and were leading a “happy married life.” The wife filed an affidavit stating she was dependent upon the appellant and wished to live peacefully with him and the child. The complainant, appearing virtually, informed the Court that he had no objection to ending the criminal proceedings.

The Court recognised that criminal law vindicates societal interest and deterrence but emphasised the need for a nuanced approach in “proper cases.” Citing the constitutional power to do “complete justice,” the Bench balanced competing interests of justice, deterrence and rehabilitation and considered the subsequent events, welfare of the child, and the victim’s dependence. The Court recorded that it discerned the offence in the factual matrix “was not the result of lust but love,” and concluded that, in these unique circumstances, invoking Article 142 to quash the proceedings was warranted. The appeal was allowed; conviction and sentence were quashed subject to the condition that the appellant shall not desert and shall maintain his wife and child, failing which the consequences may be severe. The Court clarified that the order was rendered in unique circumstances and shall not be treated as a precedent.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 679 of 2024 (2025 INSC 1272, Non‑reportable) Case Title: K. Kirubakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): [Not indicated in the judgment] For the Respondent(s): Mr. Krishnamoorthy, learned Senior Counsel for the State of Tamil Nadu