The Supreme Court opted not to punish a person convicted under the POCSO Act, 2012 from sexual offenses. The decision was taken on the basis of this assessment of the court that the victim, who is now an adult, did not see the incident as a crime, and more trauma arose from legal and social consequences rather than the incident. The apex court said that although the incident falls under the category of legal offense, the victim’s notion is different from statutory interpretation. According to the final report of the court appointed by the court, the problem faced by the victim was mainly due to law enforcement, court process and his struggle to save the accused.
At the time of crime, the person was 24 years old and was convicted for having sex with a minor. However, after the girl became an adult, the two got married. Now the couple is living together and raising their child. A bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan refused to sentence the court, using its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, which allows the court to perform “full justice”. The bench, underlining important flaws in the legal structure, described the case as an eye -opening.
The Supreme Court also presented a serious picture of the victim’s visit, stating that he was denied informed option due to social norms, a failed legal system and the absence of family support. The court said that the society did justice to him, the legal system thwarted him and his own family left him. The court said that the victim now shares a strong emotional bond with the accused and protects her small family a lot. In view of the complexity of the case, the court issued several instructions to the state government and also gave notice to the Ministry of Women and Child Development, urging the policy suggestions made by Amicus Curie.