Supreme Court Uses Article 142 to Quash Conviction After Accused Marries Victim

The Supreme Court of India, in the exercise of its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, has quashed the conviction of an accused who had been found guilty of rape and kidnapping. The Court took into account the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the fact that the accused had subsequently married the victim and they now have four children.

The case dates back to 1997, when an FIR was lodged by the complainant against three accused persons. The Trial Court, in 1999, convicted one of the accused while acquitting the others. The conviction was later upheld by the High Court in 2019, prompting the accused to challenge the decision before the Supreme Court.

Background of the Case

• The complainant had filed an FIR in 1997 against three individuals for rape and kidnapping.
• The Trial Court, in 1999, convicted the present appellant, while the other two accused were acquitted.
• In 2019, the High Court affirmed the Trial Court’s conviction.
• In 2003, the appellant married the complainant, and they subsequently had four children.
• The appellant challenged the 2019 High Court ruling before the Supreme Court.

Arguments Before the Supreme Court

• The appellant argued that confirming his conviction would cause greater injustice, as he had since married the complainant and had a family with her.
• The complainant supported the appellant’s argument, stating that she had married him willingly and that they were now living as a family.
• The State opposed the appeal, asserting that the victim was a minor at the time of the alleged offence. It argued that subsequent marriage cannot erase past crimes, especially those proved in court.

Supreme Court's Observations & Decision

• The Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma observed that Article 142 of the Constitution confers a special power on the Supreme Court to do complete justice.
• The Court acknowledged that this power must be exercised sparingly, keeping in mind the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case.
• In light of the accused’s subsequent marriage to the complainant and the fact that they now have four children, the Court found sufficient grounds to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 142.

Key Observations from the Judgment

• “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 by following earlier dicta of this case in the aforesaid orders.”
• The Court also relied on precedents such as:
  • K. Dhandapani vs. State by the Inspector of Police (2022 SCC Online SC 1056)
  • Dasari Srikanth vs. State of Telangana (2024 SCC Online SC 936)
  • In these cases, the Court had quashed convictions under Article 142, considering similar post-conviction developments.

Final Verdict

• Considering the marriage and family situation of the appellant and complainant, the Supreme Court set aside the convictions upheld by the High Court and Trial Court.
• The appellant was acquitted of all charges.

Case Title: SHRIRAM URAV v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH., CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 41/2021

Attachment: