WHEN LAW LISTENS TO THE HEART: A COMPASSIONATE TURN IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE

INTRODUCTION
In the Judgment of K. Kirubakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 INSC 1272, delivered on October 28, 2025, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih, invoked its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to quash the conviction of an appellant under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
The Judgment stands as a remarkable instance of judicial compassion, where the Court chose to prioritize the principles of reconciliation, familial stability and social welfare over the rigid enforcement of penal consequences. It reaffirms the Supreme Court’s constitutional role as a guardian not just of legality, but of complete justice, guided by empathy and practical realities.

BRIEF FACTS
The Appellant, K. Kirubakaran, was convicted by the Trial Court for offences punishable under Section 366 IPC (kidnapping or inducing a woman to compel her marriage) and Section 6 of the POCSO Act (aggravated penetrative sexual assault). He was sentenced to five years’ rigorous imprisonment under the IPC and ten years’ rigorous imprisonment under the POCSO Act, along with fines.
The Madras High Court, in its Judgment dated 13 September 2021, affirmed the conviction and sentence.
However, during the pendency of the Appeal, the Appellant married the victim in May 2021 and they were later blessed with a male child. A report by the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority (TNSLSA) confirmed that the couple was living a peaceful and happy married life. The Victim, now the Appellant’s wife, filed an affidavit expressing her desire to continue living with her husband and their child, stating that she was dependent on him and sought a normal and peaceful life.
In light of these developments, the Appellant prayed before the Supreme Court to quash his conviction and sentence under Article 142, contending that continuing the criminal proceedings would destroy their family and cause further injustice.

ISSUES OF LAW
The pivotal legal issue before the Court was:
Whether a conviction under the POCSO Act—ordinarily treated as a heinous and non-compoundable offence—can be quashed under Article 142 of the Constitution in light of subsequent marriage between the accused and the victim and their settled family life.
This issue required the Court to carefully balance the statutory mandate of deterrence under the POCSO Act against the constitutional power of equity and complete justice vested in the Supreme Court.

ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGMENT
The Court acknowledged that criminal law is designed not only to punish individual wrongs but to protect the collective conscience of society. However, it emphasized that justice administration cannot be divorced from human realities. The law, while stern in protecting victims, must also recognize instances where compassion serves society’s ultimate welfare better than retribution.
The Court observed that although the POCSO Act was enacted to address serious sexual offences against minors and its provisions are non-compoundable, the peculiar circumstances of this case warranted an exceptional approach. The Victim, now an adult, had voluntarily married the Appellant, was living happily with him and expressed no grievance or trauma. The Court noted that the “crime was not the result of lust but love” and that continuing the proceedings would only disrupt a stable family unit and inflict hardship on the wife, child and society at large.
In exercising powers under Article 142, the Court observed that these extraordinary powers exist to “avoid situations of injustice being caused by the rigid application of law.” It thus quashed the conviction and sentence, holding that the law must sometimes yield to the cause of justice.
However, the Bench imposed a stringent condition that the Appellant must not desert his wife and child and must maintain them with dignity throughout their lives. It warned that any violation of this duty could attract serious consequences.
Finally, the Court clarified that this decision was rendered in the unique circumstances of the case and should not be treated as a precedent, thereby ensuring that the exceptional use of Article 142 does not undermine the deterrent framework of the POCSO Act.

CONCLUSION
The decision in K. Kirubakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu epitomizes the Supreme Court’s role as the sentinel of both justice and humanity. It reflects the understanding that justice is not a mechanical application of law, but a moral pursuit guided by compassion and social welfare.
While reaffirming that offences under the POCSO Act remain grave and non-compoundable, the Court demonstrated that in extraordinary cases where love, marriage and rehabilitation coexist, the rigid letter of law may yield to the larger cause of human dignity and societal harmony.
Through this Judgment, the Supreme Court has once again illuminated the true essence of Article 142 — as a constitutional safety valve ensuring that justice, in its most complete sense, is done.

SARTHAK KALRA
Senior Legal Associate
The Indian Lawyer & Allied Services

Please log onto our YouTube channel, The Indian Lawyer Legal Tips, to learn about various aspects of the law. Our latest Video, titled “Tips for Legal Practice in India | Build a Successful Law Career 2025 | Advocate Sushila Ram Varma|” can be viewed at the link below:
https://youtu.be/DHnNWeptB5k