New Delhi- In a notable order invoking its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court on May 26, acquitted a man in a POCSO case after the victim, who was a minor at the time of the alleged offences, married him and expressed her desire to settle the matter and live peacefully with him.

The Court allowed the appeals arising out of SLPs filed by the accused Maruthupandi, setting aside his conviction and 10-year sentence imposed by the Fast Track Mahila Court, Dharmapuri, in 2019 under Section 5(1) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The Madras High Court had earlier dismissed his plea to record additional evidence from the victim.

According to the order delivered by a bench comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Atul S. Chandurkar, the victim and accused were in a relationship since around 2012. The victim had lodged a complaint after he allegedly refused to marry her following repeated sexual intercourse on the promise of marriage while she was a minor. The accused was convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court under Sections 5(1) and 6 of the POCSO Act for a period of 10 years in 2019. An appeal was filed before the Madras High Court, which suspended his jail sentence.

Following the conviction, the victim filed affidavits stating they had settled the matter and were living together. This was rejected by the High Court in 2021. Being dissatisfied with the order, the accused filed an appeal before the Supreme Court, which during the proceedings, directed the recording of her statements before a Magistrate.

During the hearing, the victim informed the Court that she had received Rs 10 lakh from Maruthupandi as security for her future life, as agreed upon in Court. She explicitly stated that she wished to end the litigation and had no objection to setting aside the conviction so they could live together as spouses.

The Supreme Court noted the sequence of events, including the victim's evolving statements, the subsequent marriage, and the payment of compensation. While exercising its plenary powers, the Court acquitted Maruthupandi without delving into the merits of the original case, citing the "peculiar facts and circumstances."

The bench made it clear that the order was passed in the specific facts of this case and "will not be treated as a precedent for any other purpose." The State counsel did not dispute the developments and left the matter to the Court's discretion, requesting that it not set a precedent.

With the substantive jail sentence already suspended by the High Court in 2019, Maruthupandi was not required to surrender. The Court directed that the appellant and the victim be allowed to live peacefully as spouses.