In a significant judgment dated May 23, 2025, the Supreme Court of India decided not to impose a sentence on a man convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The bench, comprising Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to deliver complete justice based on the unique circumstances of the case.
Read also: Supreme Court Declares Maharashtra’s Zudpi Jungles as Protected Forests, Mandates Strict
The Court noted that the victim, now an adult and married to the convict with a child, did not view the incident as a crime. The victim had suffered more from the legal and social consequences than the act itself.
“Though the incident is seen as a crime in law, the victim did not accept it as one... what caused trauma to the victim was not the legal offence but the consequences — police, legal system, and the fight to protect the accused from punishment,” the Court stated.
The Court highlighted that due to systemic and societal issues, the victim had no chance to make an informed decision earlier in life.
“The society judged her, the legal system failed her, and her own family abandoned her,” the bench observed.
Read also: Supreme Court Criticizes Indian Navy Over Denial of Permanent Commission to Woman JAG Officer
The report from the expert committee revealed that the victim was emotionally attached to the convict and was now protective of their family life.
“That is the reason we are giving for exercising power under Article 142 not to impose sentence,” remarked Justice Oka.
Background of the Case
The case stemmed from a suo motu action by the Supreme Court following controversial remarks by the Calcutta High Court in a separate POCSO case. The High Court's judgment was set aside by the Supreme Court on August 20, 2024, which restored the conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 376(3) and 376(2)(n) of the IPC, while acquitting the man under Sections 363 and 366 IPC.
The Supreme Court criticized the High Court’s observations about adolescent behaviour, calling them objectionable and violative of Article 21 of the Constitution.
Read also: "In Personal Liberty Cases, High Courts Must Act Swiftly": Supreme Court Grants Bail After 27
Instead of directly sentencing the accused, the Supreme Court ordered a deeper review of the victim’s current situation. The West Bengal Government was directed to form a three-member expert committee. This panel included a clinical psychologist, a social scientist, and a child welfare officer, with assistance from institutions like NIMHANS and TISS.
The committee was tasked with:
- Informing the victim of her rights and benefits under State and Union schemes.
- Helping her decide whether to continue living with the accused.
- Submitting their report in a sealed cover to the Court.
“The facts of this case are an eye-opener for everyone. It highlights the lacunae in the legal system,” the Court noted.
The Court also issued comprehensive directions:
- State governments must comply with Section 19(6) of the POCSO Act and Sections 30–43 of the Juvenile Justice (JJ) Act, 2015.
- Law Departments of all States/UTs must hold meetings with stakeholders and frame Rules to implement Section 46 of the JJ Act.
- Reports on compliance must be submitted to the Ministry of Women and Child Development, which will then report back to the Supreme Court.
On October 24, 2024, the Court recorded the State's assurance of quality education for the victim’s child. Later, on April 3, 2025, the Court emphasized the need for financial support and vocational training for the victim after her Class 10 Board exams, through the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority.
Case no. – SMW(C) No. 3/2023
Case Title – In Re: Right To Privacy Of Adolescents
