Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India has set aside the conviction of an appellant who had been found guilty under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), citing exceptional circumstances under Article 142 of the Constitution. The ruling follows a series of similar decisions where the court has intervened in cases where the accused and the prosecutrix subsequently married and built a family. The appeal challenged a judgment by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, which had upheld the conviction.

The case originated from an FIR (No. 83/1997) lodged at Batouli Police Station, Surguja District, Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh), under Sections 363, 366, and 376 IPC. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, along with two co-accused, had committed offenses related to kidnapping and sexual assault.

Following an investigation, charges were framed under Sections 363, 366, and 376 IPC against the appellant, while the co-accused were charged under Section 368 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed false implication. The prosecutrix deposed as PW-1, while medical evidence was provided by PW-5.

The Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Sections 363, 366, and 376 of the IPC, sentencing him to three years of rigorous imprisonment for the offense under Section 363, five years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 366, and seven years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 376. Additionally, the court imposed a fine of ₹200, with a further term of imprisonment in case of default.

The co-accused were acquitted. The appellant appealed to the Madhya Pradesh High Court, later transferred to the Chhattisgarh High Court following the state's reorganization. The High Court, in its judgment dated April 25, 2019, upheld the conviction under Sections 366 and 376 IPC but set aside the conviction under Section 363 IPC.

In 2021, the appellant approached the Supreme Court, arguing that his continued conviction would cause undue hardship as he had since married the prosecutrix in 2003, and they had four children. Counsel for the prosecutrix supported the appellant’s plea, stating that upholding the conviction would adversely impact their family. The State, however, opposed the appeal, asserting that the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the offense and that a post-conviction marriage did not negate the established criminal liability.

The Supreme Court considered the arguments and examined prior rulings in similar cases. The judgment noted: "Article 142 of the Constitution confers jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to pass such orders as are necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The said power is no doubt to be exercised sparingly and having regard to the peculiar facts of the case for achieving justice between the parties."

Referring to precedents, the court cited K. Dhandapani v. State and Dasari Srikanth v. State of Telangana, where convictions under similar charges were quashed in light of the accused having later married the prosecutrix and started a family. The court quoted from Dasari Srikanth:

"Since the appellant and the complainant have married each other, the affirmation of the judgment rendered by the High Court would have the disastrous consequence on the accused appellant being sent to jail, which in turn could put his matrimonial relationship with the complainant in danger."

Applying this rationale, the court determined that continued enforcement of the sentence would result in "greater injustice to both the appellant and the prosecutrix, given their marital status and existing family obligations."

The court clarified that such relief was granted "in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and shall not be treated as a precedent."

The Supreme Court exercised its powers under Article 142 and quashed the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The ruling stated: "The impugned judgment dated 25.04.2019 in C.R.A. No.1267 of 1999, by which the judgment and sentence dated 22.04.1999 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur-Surguja (M.P.) (now in Chhattisgarh) in S.T. No.16/1998 was modified, stand quashed."

Further, the court ordered: "The appellant is acquitted of all the charges against him. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms."

Case Title: Shriram Urav v. State of Chhattisgarh
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 41/2021
Bench: Justice B.V. Nagarathna, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

[Read/Download order]