The top court had in 2023 initiated a suo motu case in the wake of a Calcutta High Court ruling that had called for adolescent girls to “control” their sexual urges instead of “giving in to two minutes of pleasure”.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court chose not to impose a sentence on a man convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, citing his subsequent marriage to the victim, who was 14 years old at the time of the 2018 incident [In Re: Right to Privacy of Adolescent].
A Bench comprising Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan invoked the Court’s inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to grant relief to the convict, describing the case as an eye-opener for society.
“What troubles us is the issue of sentencing. Though the victim did not treat the incident as heinous crime, she suffered because of it. This was because at an earlier stage, the victim could not make an informed choice due to the shortcomings in our society, our legal system and in her family,” the Court remarked.
The Court noted that the victim, who has since given birth to a child, is herself eager to protect her husband and preserve their family.
“The society judged her, the legal system failed her and her own family abandoned her. Now she is at a stage where she is desperate to save her husband, she is emotionally committed to the accused and has become very possessive about her small family.”
“The facts of the case are eyeopener for everyone. It highlights the lacuna in our legal system.”
Supreme Court
The verdict was delivered in a suo motu case taken up by the Supreme Court following a controversial ruling by the Calcutta High Court, which had advised adolescent girls to “control” their sexual urges rather than “succumbing to two minutes of pleasure.”
The High Court’s remarks had stirred debate as they introduced a ‘duty/obligation based approach’ for teenagers, implying differing responsibilities for adolescent boys and girls.
In December 2023, the Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the matter, stating that the High Court’s remarks were sweeping, objectionable, irrelevant, preachy, and unwarranted.
The West Bengal government had also appealed against the High Court’s decision to acquit the accused. Subsequently, in August 2024, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order and reinstated the conviction.
However, the Supreme Court deferred the sentencing decision, choosing to wait for the report of a committee formed to assist the victim in making an informed decision about her future.
“The duty of the committee shall be to help the victim to make an informed choice whether she wants to continue to remain in the company of the accused and his family or wants to avail of the benefits offered by the State Government,” the top court had ordered
Today, the Supreme Court stated that, according to the committee’s report, while the incident is legally classified as a crime, the victim herself does not perceive it as such.
“The Committee records that it was not a legal crime that caused any trauma to the victim but rather it was the consequence that followed which took a toll on her. What she had to face as a consequence was the police, the legal system and the constant battle to save the accused from punishment,” it added.
As a result, the Supreme Court chose not to impose any sentence on the convict. It also issued specific directions to the State government and served a notice to the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development, seeking further action on the broader concerns highlighted in the case.