Unusual facts:Supreme Court directs the release of a Tamil Nadu man who was sentenced to 20 years under POCSO.

The Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud-led bench invoked its powers under Article 142, considering the unique circumstances of the case.

In New Delhi, the Supreme Court on Monday invoked its authority under Article 142 of the Constitution to order the release of a man sentenced to 20 years in jail for the 2014 rape of a minor girl whom he later married, exercising its discretion for complete justice.

Led by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, the bench stated that, despite twice upholding the conviction and sentence of the convict, it was invoking its powers under Article 142 due to the unique circumstances of the case.

The bench, including Justices Sanjiv Khanna and BR Gavai, directed the release of the convict on the sentence already served, additionally waiving the ₹2 lakh fine imposed by the trial court. Citing the 2022 Supreme Court decision in K Dhandapani v State with similar circumstances, Sankar argued that his imprisonment had disrupted his marital life, leaving his wife and children in destitution.

The Supreme Court expressed, “This appears to be the most viable solution. Must we delve into legal intricacies here? It might be better to let it be resolved in a different case… We acknowledge the potential complications, but the crucial question is, who will bear the consequences?”

Senior advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing the Tamil Nadu government, emphasized that an exception should not be granted as the convict not only committed sexual assault on a minor but also exploited her innocence through marriage. Luthra added that the rapist was already married with children from his first wife, highlighting the lack of proof for the marriage with the victim and stating, “This issue needs to be handled with nuance.”

However, the court highlighted the absence of a complaint of bigamy as mandated by the law. Additionally, it acknowledged uncertainties regarding the victim’s age.

Despite the birth certificate indicating her age as 14 at the time of the incident, a radiologist’s examination estimated her age to be 18-19 years. Throughout the trial, the victim asserted her date of birth as March 16, 1995, making her 19 years old during the 2014 incident. This information was corroborated by her mother, who stated that the victim was 19 when she initially reported the sexual assault by the convict.