A special POCSO court in Kerala has sentenced a woman and her male partner to 180 years of imprisonment and a fine of Rs 11.7 lakh for sexually assaulting a minor girl. The court convicted both of them under several provisions of the POCSO Act, Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Juvenile Justice Act.

What is the whole matter?

The 33-year-old man was accused of repeatedly raping his girlfriend’s 12-year-old daughter, while the woman, who is the girl’s mother, was accused of aiding him in the heinous crime and also forcing her daughter to commit the crime. According to the prosecution, the woman forced her own daughter to watch her having physical relations with the accused, which left the child mentally and emotionally broken.

Where and how did the crime occur?

According to the report of Times of India, the woman earlier lived in Thiruvananthapuram with her husband and daughter. At the same time, he was identified with the accused through phone conversation. Gradually the relationship deepened and the woman ran away with him. Both of them started living together in Palakkad and Malappuram and during this time the minor girl was also with them.

Special Public Prosecutor Somasundaran A. Told in the court that the accused sexually abused the girl several times between December 2019 and November 2020. This harassment continued from December 2020 to October 2021. The court found the woman guilty on the grounds that she encouraged the crime, exerted mental pressure on the child and tried to hide the crime.

other serious allegations

The prosecution also said that the woman showed the girl obscene videos, gave her beer and threatened her by saying that a CCTV camera had been installed in her brain, so that if she told anything to anyone, it would be immediately known.

How did the matter come to light?

The matter came to light when the woman reached Malappuram police station and accused her parents of not giving her Aadhar card and other documents. When the police asked the woman’s parents to provide the certificate and they reached her house, they expressed their desire to see their granddaughter, but the woman refused. Later the neighbors told that the condition of the girl was bad and she was not even being given proper food. After this the family contacted Childline and the girl was sent to Snehita Centre. At the same time, the girl narrated the entire incident that happened to her.

Read this also-

India-Pakistan Submarine War: In what matters India, the king of the sea, is behind Pakistan, Dragon is helping its neighbor, know Navy comparison

In a rare case, the Supreme Court, using its full powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, has quashed POCSO proceedings against a man who had sex with a minor girl and later married her. The court also said, ‘This crime was not the result of lust, but of love.’

Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice A. Yes. Masih’s bench said that the victim (now wife) has said that she was married to the man and they both had a one-year-old son. They are living a happy life now. The girl’s father also wants the criminal proceedings against his daughter’s husband to end.

Criminal law is a manifestation of the sovereign will of society.

The bench said, ‘We are aware of the fact that the crime is not only against an individual but against the entire society. When a crime is committed it hurts the collective conscience of the society and hence the society, through its elected MPs, determines what the punishment will be for such a crime and how the criminal should be treated, so that it is not repeated.’

The bench said that criminal law is a manifestation of the sovereign will of the society, but the implementation of such law is not divorced from practical realities. The bench, in its order dated October 28, said, ‘Delivering justice requires a nuanced approach. This court gives its decisions according to the specificities of each case, that is, it gives decisions with firmness and seriousness as required, but also with kindness.

Supreme Court has extraordinary power of ‘absolute justice’

The bench said that it is also in the best interest of the society to end any dispute as far as possible. Justice Dutta, in his judgment written on behalf of the bench, said that the Supreme Court needs to balance the conflicting interests of justice, resistance and reform.

The bench said that the framers of the Constitution have given this court an extraordinary power to do ‘complete justice’ in appropriate cases and this constitutional power is distinct from all other powers and its object is to avoid situations of injustice arising from the rigid application of law.

Crime is not the result of lust, it is the result of love.

The Court said, ‘As per the law made by the Legislature, the proceedings in the present case cannot be quashed on the basis of the agreement entered into between the Appellant and his wife after the Appellant has been found guilty of a heinous crime, but in our opinion, justice will not be served by ignoring the pleas of the Appellant’s wife for compassion and sympathy.’

The bench said, ‘The appellant and the victim are not only legally married, but they are also together in family life. Considering the offense of the appellant under the POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses) Act, we find that the offense was not the result of lust, but of love.’

Supreme Court order under Article 142

It also said, ‘The victim herself has expressed her desire to live a peaceful and stable family life with the appellant, so that the husband (appellant) does not bear the indelible mark of being a criminal.’ The Supreme Court said that continuation of the criminal proceedings and the imprisonment of the appellant would cause disruption to the family and would cause irreparable damage to the victim, the newborn child and the fabric of the society.

The bench said, ‘Accordingly, in view of the above considerations, subsequent developments in the trial and in the interest of providing complete justice, we consider it appropriate to quash the criminal proceedings in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.’

Supreme Court warned the criminal husband

The Supreme Court warned and imposed a condition on the man and said that he would never leave his wife and child and would also support them with respect throughout his life. The bench clarified that this order has been given in specific circumstances and it should not be considered as a precedent for any other case.

Also, the bench warned the husband, saying, ‘If in future any lapse occurs on the part of the appellant and is brought to the notice of this court by his wife, his children or the complainant, the consequences will not be pleasant for the appellant.’

Also read:- Andhra Pradesh: 10 killed in stampede in Srikakulam temple, PM Modi and President Murmu expressed grief

The Supreme Court has refused to cancel the FIR filed against the former judge, who has been accused of sexually abusing his own daughter. The Supreme Court judge was surprised to hear the allegations of the daughter.

According to the report of the news agency PTI-language, a bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan asked the petitioner, ‘Daughter is making allegations. This is a shocking case. The petitioner is a judicial officer and this is a very serious charge. It is surprising that the daughter has made allegations. He must have been shocked for a lifetime. How can this be a case of cancellation of FIR ‘

The former judge had filed a petition in the Supreme Court against an order of the Bombay High Court of April 15, 2025, which was rejected by the bench. The High Court had upheld the allegations of the subordinate court. The petitioner alleges that his wife has been living separately due to the marital dispute for a long time and now made false allegations to trap him. However, the court refused to accept the appeal of the former judge.

The appellant also argued in his application that the wife also harassed her father, due to which he committed suicide. Justice Manmohan said on this, ‘We do not want to fall into all this. He can also commit suicide due to these works of his son (judge).

The former judge’s lawyer argued, “My whole life was ruined due to his marital problems.” The lawyer said, ‘His (former judge’s) father committed suicide. The complaint was made much later and it was never mentioned during earlier legal proceedings.

The bench paid more attention to serious allegations under the POCSO Act against the former judge instead of these arguments by the lawyer.

The case came to light in Bhandara, Maharashtra on January 21, 2019 after the alleged incidents of misconduct between May 2014 and 2018. A charge sheet has been filed in this case, but formal charges are yet to be framed in the case.

The former judge has been charged under Section 7, 8, 9 (L), 9 (n) and 10 of the Poxo Act, besides attacking her with the intention of hurting the dignity of the woman under Section 354 under Section 354 of the then Indian Penal Code (IPC).