Supreme Court: In a suo motu writ petition initiated by the Court in 2023, following the Calcutta High Court ruling that controversially urged adolescent girls to “control” their sexual urges rather than “giving in to two minutes of pleasure”, a Division Bench of Abhay S. Oka* and Ujjal Bhuyan, JJ., exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, held that although the accused was convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’), he would not undergo sentence. The Court observed that, in law, it was obligated to sentence the convict and impose the minimum punishment prescribed by the statute. However, in this case, society, the victim’s family, and the legal system had already inflicted sufficient injustice upon the victim. Having endured significant trauma and agony, the Court did not wish to compound her suffering by sending her husband to jail.
Further, the Court directed the State to take the following measures:
-
To act as a true guardian of the victim and her child;
-
To provide better shelter to the victim and her family within a period of a few months from that date;
-
To bear the entire expenditure of the education of the victim up to the Xth standard examination, and if she desired to pursue higher education, to bear the expenses until the completion of her degree course. After passing the Xth standard examination, the State could offer vocational training at its cost;
-
To bear the entire expenditure for the education of the child up to the Xth standard and to ensure that she was enrolled in a reputed school near the victim’s place of residence; and
-
To endeavour to seek assistance from NGOs or public-spirited citizens to secure a one-time settlement of the debts incurred by the victim.
Background
The victim met the accused in 2017 through her neighbour, who was also the sister of the accused. At that time, the victim was 13 years old, and the accused was 25. Over time, they developed a relationship, and on 20-05-2018, the victim left her home and married the accused at a temple. Within nine days, her mother lodged a police complaint, following which the victim was placed in a shelter home for a month before being sent back to her parents. She resumed her education and was promoted to Class 10.
However, during that period, the victim again left her parental home and started living with the accused. The victim continued residing with the accused’s extended family. In May 2021, she gave birth to a daughter. After a brief stay with her parents post-delivery, she returned to the accused’s family home. When the child was seven months old, the accused was arrested.
A Special Judge convicted the accused under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Sections 363 and 366 of the Penal Code (‘IPC’). The accused was sentenced to twenty years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹10,000 for the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and to four and five years’ rigorous imprisonment respectively, along with fines of ₹2,000 and ₹5,000 for the offences under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. Although found guilty under clause (n) of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) of Section 376 IPC, no separate sentence was imposed for these offences due to the punishment under the POCSO Act.
The accused appealed to the Calcutta High Court, which set aside the conviction under its powers under Article 226 and Section 482 CrPC. The State filed a criminal appeal, and this Court, by judgment dated 20-08-2024, restored the Special Court’s conviction under Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376 IPC, while confirming acquittal under Sections 363 and 366 IPC. Sentencing was deferred, and the West Bengal Government was directed to form a committee of experts, including a clinical psychologist and social scientist.
In the current suo motu writ petition, the Court considered sentencing the accused, the rehabilitation of the victim and her child, and broader measures for adolescent well-being and child protection addressing root societal issues.
Analysis and Decision
The Court examined the Committee’s preliminary and final reports. The preliminary report highlighted a critical phase in the victim’s life, during which she felt stigmatized and humiliated as her case became a subject of village gossip. She faced taunts from siblings and strict supervision by her mother, which likely compelled her to leave home again.
The Committee noted that the accused’s arrest deeply affected the victim and her daughter, who suffered from separation anxiety in her father’s absence. During the accused’s two-year imprisonment, the victim struggled to defend him, incurring heavy financial burdens. The final report recorded that she spent over ₹2 lakhs, borrowing the entire amount, resulting in a vicious debt trap. A mitigating factor was the support provided by the accused’s family to the victim and her child during this period.
Considering their economic condition, the Court observed that the accused’s family was extremely poor. At the time, the victim, accused, and their daughter lived in a temporary shelter with brick walls and a tarpaulin roof, lacking a proper door. The accused, uneducated, worked hard as a daily wage labourer.The Court also noted an improvement in the victim’s relationship with her parents, who cared for her during illness.
The Court said that the facts of the case served as an eye-opener for all, revealing significant lacunae in the legal system. The final report of the Committee concluded that, while the incident was treated as a crime under the law, the victim herself did not perceive it as such. The trauma she endured stemmed not from the legal offence but from the consequences that followed interactions with the police, the complexities of the legal process, and her persistent efforts to shield the accused from punishment.
Despite these challenges, the victim continued to care for her daughter to the best of her abilities, all while bearing a substantial financial burden. The Committee’s conclusion underscored that it was these systemic consequences, rather than the act itself, that left a lasting impact on the victim—making it, indeed, an eye-opening case.
The Court stressed that what troubled it most was the issue of sentencing. The findings of the Committee stared unflinchingly at the realities before the Court. Although the victim did not perceive the incident as a heinous crime, the suffering she endured was undeniable. This suffering was not born of the legal offence itself but stemmed from a lack of agency, her inability, at a formative stage, to make an informed choice. That inability was a direct consequence of the deep-rooted failures of society, the legal system, and her own family.
The Court said that the victim was judged by society, failed by the legal institutions meant to protect her, and abandoned by her family at a time when she needed support the most. As a result, she now finds herself emotionally attached and committed to the accused. She is desperate to protect him and has become deeply possessive of the small family she has built with him and their daughter.
After reviewing the reports and engaging in interactions with both the Committee and the victim, the Court was of the considered view that sending the accused to jail at this stage would, in fact, inflict the greatest hardship on the victim herself. Unlike her situation in 2018, the victim is now relatively better placed—emotionally, socially, and in terms of stability. She has found a sense of comfort and belonging within her small family unit. Together with the accused, she is focused on raising their daughter and ensuring that the child receives a quality education. The final report also records that the victim is currently attending school and is determined to complete her formal education. Although the State has offered to enroll her in a vocational course, she has expressed a strong desire to continue her studies, aspiring to complete her education at least up to graduation.
The Court observed that, in law, there was no option but to sentence the accused and direct him to undergo the minimum punishment prescribed by the statute. However, in the present case, the victim has already been subjected to grave injustice, not only by society and her own family, but also by the legal system itself. She has endured significant trauma and emotional suffering. The Court expressed its unwillingness to compound this injustice by now separating the victim from her husband through imprisonment.
The Court remarked that “as Judges, we cannot shut our eyes to these harsh realities. At this stage, to do complete and meaningful justice to the victim, the only viable course is to ensure that the accused is not separated from her”. The Court emphasised that both the State and society bear a responsibility to support the rehabilitation of this family, and to extend all necessary assistance until they attain stability in every respect.
The Court said that it was vested with extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution for the singular purpose of ensuring that the highest Court of the land was able to deliver substantial justice in its truest and fullest sense. In the context of the present case, the Court observed with regret that true justice lay in not sentencing the accused to imprisonment. It emphasised that this case was not and must not become a precedent. Rather, it stood as a stark illustration of the complete failure of both society and the legal system.
The Court noted that what the system could do for the victim now was to support her in fulfilling her desire to complete her education, to settle down in life, to provide better educational opportunities for her daughter, and to secure improved living conditions for her family.
To remedy this grave situation, the Court declared that it was the solemn obligation of the State Government to act as the true guardian of the victim and her child, ensuring that they were able to settle down and lead a happy, healthy, and constructive life going forward.
The Court also passed the following orders:
-
The State was directed to file compliance reports detailing the implementation of the above directions. The first compliance report was to be filed by 15-07-2025. Thereafter, compliance reports were to be filed every six months. The first compliance report was to be considered on 25-07-2025. The Registry was directed to list the case on 25-07-2025.
-
The Court issued notice to the Union of India through the Secretary of the Ministry of Women and Child Development. The notice was made returnable on 25-07-2025.
-
Immediately upon service of the notice, the Secretary of the Ministry of Women and Child Development was directed to appoint a Committee of experts to consider the suggestions made by the amici curiae. Senior officers of the State were to be part of the Committee. If necessary, the Committee could consult the amici curiae. The Committee was to be constituted immediately upon service of the notice. The members of the Committee appointed by this Court were to be permanent invitees to the Committee.
-
The Committee was directed to submit a detailed report before the returnable date to the Court. Based on the report and the implementation of the suggestions by the amici curiae, the Court would pass further directions from time to time.
[Right to privacy of adolescents, In Re, Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2023 with Criminal Appeal No.1451 of 2024, decided on 23-05-2025]
*Judgment Authored by: Justice Abhay S. Oka
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
