New Delhi: In a rare and compassionate ruling, the Supreme Court has set aside a 10-year rigorous imprisonment sentence awarded to a young man convicted in a rape case, observing that the matter stemmed from a misunderstanding arising out of a consensual relationship rather than a criminal act.
The apex court described the case as one of those exceptional situations where justice required going beyond a purely technical reading of the law. The Bench, comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, said the dispute was more humanitarian in nature and warranted a deeper understanding of the realities involved.
The case dates back to a relationship that began in 2015, when the man and the woman became acquainted through social media. Their friendship gradually developed into a romantic relationship, followed by a consensual physical relationship. At the time, the woman and her family did not oppose the relationship, as marriage discussions were ongoing.
However, as time passed, the marriage was repeatedly delayed, leading to insecurity and emotional distress for the woman. In 2021, she lodged an FIR accusing the man under Sections 376 and 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code. A trial court convicted him and sentenced him to 10 years in prison. The High Court later upheld the conviction, leaving the Supreme Court as his final legal recourse.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court felt that documents alone were insufficient to capture the true nature of the case. In an unusual move, the court directed the accused, the complainant, and their respective parents to appear in person. The judges interacted with them privately in chambers to understand the circumstances in depth.
These interactions revealed that the relationship had been genuine and consensual, and that the criminal case arose primarily due to misunderstandings and anxiety linked to the delay in marriage. Both individuals informed the court that they still wished to marry, a position supported by their families.
Taking note of these facts, the court granted the accused special bail to enable the marriage and subsequently exercised its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice. The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the case was formally closed.
The Supreme Court also addressed the professional consequences faced by the man, who had been suspended from his job at a government hospital following his conviction. The court ordered the restoration of his employment and directed that he be paid full salary for the period of suspension. The Chief Medical and Health Officer of Sagar district in Madhya Pradesh was instructed to revoke the suspension order.
The Bench emphasised that this ruling should not be treated as a precedent in routine cases, noting that it was delivered in highly unusual circumstances where criminal proceedings had emerged from a consensual relationship clouded by miscommunication and delay.
