SC clears man of rape charges after 27 years

The man was convicted for kidnapping and raping a woman, who is now his wife and the mother of their four children.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has set aside the conviction of a man who underwent a 27-year-long legal ordeal for allegedly kidnapping and raping a woman -- who is now his wife of 21 years and the mother of their four children -- noting that continuing to uphold his conviction would cause greater injustice, given the peculiar circumstances of the case.

The man was convicted for kidnapping and raping a woman, who is now his wife and the mother of their four children (HT PHOTO)

“Bearing in mind the fact that in this case, the appellant-accused has subsequently married the second respondent-prosecutrix and they have four children out of their wedlock, we find that the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case would persuade us to exercise our jurisdiction and powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India,” held a bench of justices BV Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma.

Article 142 which allows it to pass orders necessary to do “complete justice” in a case. The court noted that quashing the conviction was the only fair outcome in light of the couple’s two-decade-long marriage and the ground reality of their relationship.

The man was convicted for kidnapping and raping the woman in 1997, when she was reportedly a minor. Despite his conviction by a trial court and a seven-year jail term – a decision that was affirmed by the Chhattisgarh high court in 2019, the two later married in 2003 and built a family together.

The man was convicted by the trial court in April 1999 and was sentenced to seven years in jail. While the high court granted him bail two years later, the appeal remained pending for the next ten years, keeping him entangled. In April 2019, the high court affirmed the trial court decision, ordering the man to surrender immediately. He rushed to the Supreme Court, filing an appeal and seeking an exemption from surrender. His lawyer pointed out that the man and the woman are now married and that he should not be sent to jail again. After the state government verified this statement, the top court granted him bail in October 2021.

When the case reached the Supreme Court, the man’s counsel, supported by the woman -- now his wife -- argued that maintaining the conviction would not only be legally harsh but would also disrupt their family’s life.

But the State opposed the appeal, emphasising that the woman was a minor at the time of the alleged crime. However, the court reasoned that while legal principles cannot be disregarded, the unique facts of the case warranted an exceptional remedy.

The court cited its own precedents in similar cases, K Dhandapani Vs State (2022) and Dasari Srikanth Vs State of Telangana (2024), where convictions were set aside due to the subsequent marriage of the accused and the complainant. These judgments underscored that continuing to uphold the conviction would serve no real purpose except to disrupt the life of an already established family.

The court, however, chose to prioritise pragmatic justice over strict legal formalities, highlighting the importance of context, rehabilitation and evolving social realities in the backdrop of its precedents that invoked the Supreme Court’s authority under Article 142.

“Article 142 of the Constitution is a Special power conferred on the Supreme Court. Article 142(1) of the Constitution confers jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to pass such orders as are necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The said power is no doubt to be exercised sparingly and having regard to the peculiar facts of the case for achieving to do justice between the parties,” noted the bench while ruling that the present case warrants the exercise of this power.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court quashed the conviction and sentence, ensuring that the man would no longer have a criminal record. “We exercise our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India and quash the conviction as well as the sentence imposed upon the appellant herein,” declared the bench in its January 30 judgment, released earlier this week.

The ruling, while extraordinary, will not serve as a general precedent, as the court made it clear that such relief is granted only in rare and exceptional cases.

For the man, the verdict marks the end of a 27-year-long legal nightmare, allowing him to live as a free man, unburdened by a past that had already been rewritten by time.