Supreme Court annuls rape conviction of man citing marriage but with a condition

The criminal case arose out of what the SC described as an affair between the accused and the girl, who was a minor at the time of the sexual relationship.

New Delhi: From conviction for rape to exoneration under the Constitution’s broadest equity powers –– the Supreme Court has wiped out a ten-year jail term of a man after recording that he had since married the woman and that the couple was happily living together, but made it clear that the acquittal would survive only so long as he does not abandon her.

The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, noted that the relief was exceptional and conditional. (ANI)

The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, noted that the relief was exceptional and conditional, while cautioning that any attempt by the man to desert his wife would revive the conviction.

“In light of the subsequent events that the appellant and respondent No.2 got married, we deem it appropriate to invoke our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution…The appellant shall stand acquitted for all intents and purposes, however, subject to the condition that he will continue to maintain a cordial relationship and will not desert respondent No.2 – his wife,” stated the bench in its recent order.

The criminal case arose out of what the Supreme Court described as an affair between the accused and the girl, who was a minor at the time of the sexual relationship. He was convicted under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with rape, read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, which prescribes punishment for penetrative sexual assault on a minor.

The Orissa High Court, in October 2023, refused regular bail to the man after his conviction by a Jeypore trial court. The trial court sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for ten years under both the IPC and POCSO provisions, along with fines, directing that the sentences run concurrently.

While the high court granted him interim bail for limited periods, taking note of his conduct and custody period, the conviction itself remained intact and his criminal appeal remained pending. The matter reached the Supreme Court, which on February 10, 2025, granted him bail.

At that stage, the bench recorded that the accused had married the complainant in December 2019 and that counsel for the woman had informed the court that he was “keeping the complainant well”.

In its final order, the Supreme Court took note the “subsequent events”, namely, the marriage between the appellant and the complainant, solemnised with the intervention of elders, and their continued cohabitation.

“In light of the subsequent events… we deem it appropriate to invoke our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution,” the court said. Article 142 empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary for doing “complete justice” in a matter pending before it. “The appellant shall stand acquitted for all intents and purposes,” ordered the court, but imposed a caveat that he must continue to maintain a cordial relationship and “will not desert” his wife.

The court added a strict warning that if the appellant attempts to misuse the concession granted, “all proceedings at each level will stand revived.”