Summary
Sequel to the Court's judgment of 20 August 2024 restoring the conviction of the accused under Section 6 POCSO Act and Section 376(2)(n) and (3) IPC for offences against a 14-year-old who later married him and bore his child. On the sentencing question deferred in that judgment, and after considering the reports of the expert committee it had appointed and interacting with the victim, the Court exercised its power under Article 142 to direct that the accused, though convicted, will not undergo the statutory minimum sentence, because imprisoning him would make the victim, who had been failed by society, her family and the legal system, the worst sufferer. It directed the State to act as guardian of the victim and her child, with ongoing compliance reporting, and impleaded the Union to consider the amici's wider suggestions on adolescent welfare.
Issues
- Whether, in the peculiar circumstances revealed by the expert committee's reports, the convicted accused should be made to undergo the minimum sentence prescribed by the POCSO Act, or whether the Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142 to dispense with the sentence.
- What measures the State must take for the rehabilitation of the victim and her child.
- Whether wider directions should be considered on adolescent well-being, comprehensive sexuality education and data collection as suggested by the amici curiae.
Provisions considered
- Article 142, Constitution of IndiaThe Court invoked its extraordinary jurisdiction to do substantial justice, holding that in this case true justice lay in not sentencing the accused to imprisonment, while cautioning that the case is not and should not be a precedent. (¶¶ 15, 26, 27, 31)
- Section 6, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012The accused stood convicted of aggravated penetrative sexual assault, for which the Special Court had imposed twenty years' rigorous imprisonment; the Court acknowledged that in law it had no option but to impose the minimum punishment prescribed, yet declined to send him to jail under Article 142. (¶¶ 2, 3, 26, 31)
- Section 19(6), Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012Reiterating its earlier judgment, the Court stressed that strict compliance with the police duty to report the matter to the Child Welfare Committee and Special Court is vital, since non-compliance deprives victim children of welfare measures under the JJ Act and violates Article 21. (¶¶ 5, 6)
- Section 46, Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015Cited from the earlier judgment as the provision requiring the State to ensure that a victim who attains majority can stand on her own feet and lead a dignified life; the Court recorded a complete failure of the State machinery in this respect. (¶¶ 5, 6)
- Section 376(2)(n) and (3), Indian Penal Code, 1860The conviction under these provisions was restored by the earlier judgment; no separate sentence had been imposed by the Special Court in view of the sentence under Section 6 POCSO Act. (¶¶ 2, 3)
- Sections 432 and 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The amici suggested remission by the State under Section 432 (Section 473 BNSS) and examination of High Courts' power under Section 482 to quash POCSO prosecutions in adolescent relationships, noting divergent High Court approaches; the Court recorded these suggestions and referred them, with the others, to a committee to be constituted by the Union Ministry. (¶¶ 15, 30, 31)
Held
- The committee's reports showed that the victim did not perceive the incident as a crime; her trauma was caused by the consequences that followed, namely the police, the legal system and the financial burden of the battle to save the accused, in which she was exploited and fell into debt. Society judged her, the legal system failed her and her family abandoned her, so that she never had an opportunity to make an informed choice. (¶¶ 19, 20, 22, 23, 24)
- If the accused were sent to jail, the worst sufferer would be the victim herself, who is now better placed, settled with her small family, committed to her daughter's education and keen to complete her own schooling up to graduation. (¶ 25)
- Although in law the Court had no option but to impose the minimum statutory sentence, the injustice already done to the victim by society, her family and the legal system meant that real justice required ensuring the accused is not separated from her; exercising Article 142, the Court held that the accused, though convicted, will not undergo sentence. The case illustrates a complete failure of society and the legal system and is not to be treated as a precedent. (¶¶ 26, 27, 31)
- The Constitution contemplates a welfare State guaranteeing social and economic justice; the failure to provide both to the victim obliges the State Government to act as the true guardian of the victim and her child, provide better shelter, bear the cost of the victim's education up to graduation (or vocational training) and of the child's schooling, and endeavour to secure the victim's debts through NGOs or public-spirited citizens, with six-monthly compliance reports. (¶¶ 28, 29, 31)
- The amici's suggestions on comprehensive sexuality education, adolescent well-being and a State-level real-time data collection mechanism warranted being carried forward; the Union of India through the Ministry of Women and Child Development was impleaded and directed to constitute an expert committee, with the Court's committee members as permanent invitees, to report before the returnable date. (¶¶ 18, 30, 31)
Result
Under Article 142, the accused, though convicted, will not undergo sentence. State of West Bengal directed to act as guardian of the victim and her child, provide better shelter, fund the victim's education up to graduation (or vocational training) and the child's schooling up to Class X, and seek NGO help to clear the victim's debts; compliance reports by 15 July 2025 and six-monthly thereafter. Notice to the Union (Ministry of Women and Child Development), returnable 25 July 2025, to constitute an expert committee on the amici's suggestions; matter listed on 25 July 2025.