Supreme Court
NEW DELHI: It is justice by “sixth sense”. While going through bail petition of a rape convict, Supreme Court got the sense this was a consenting relationship that turned sour and resulted in conviction and a 10-year prison term for the man. It then decided to tread a different path for adjudicating the case. It interacted with the convict and the victim, along with their parents, and the case ended with their marriage and quashing of conviction. As the convict was in jail, a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma directed MP police to bring him to SC under police protection. It took the court nine months to decide the case as notice was issued in March on his plea and conviction was quashed in Dec and in between they got married.”This is one of those rare cases where on intervention of this court the appellant herein, who had applied to seek suspension of his sentence, was ultimately benefitted by quashing of his conviction as well as the sentence. …when the matter came up before this court by assailing the rejection of suspension of sentence by HC, on a consideration of facts of the case, we had a sixth sense that the appellant and the prosecutrix could be brought together. ..” the bench said.On direction of the court, both the parties, along with their parents, appeared in court and the judges personally interacted with them in chamber to know about the nature of their relationship. As they expressed willingness to get married which was also approved by their parents, SC granted the man bail to come out of jail for marriage. The two got married in July. Court thereafter posted the case for Dec to take stock of their married life and passed the final order for quashing of conviction after court was informed that they are living happily together.”Consequently, we invoked our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice in the matter by quashing the complaint as well as the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant… owing to a misunderstanding the consensual relationship between the parties was given a criminal colour and converted into an offence of false promise of marriage whereas the parties, in fact, intended to marry each other. It was only owing to the appellant seeking postponement in the date of marriage which may have led to insecurity in the mind of the respondent and filing of the criminal complaint,” the bench said.In this case, both became friends in 2015 on a social media platform and both developed a liking and fondness for each other. Thereafter, both the parties entered into a consensual physical relationship. As marriage between them could not fructify, she filed an FIR in 2021 under Section 376 and 376(2)(n) of IPC (regarding rape). He was convicted by trial court which sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. He challenged the order in HC where his appeal is still pending. He moved SC after his bail plea was rejected by HC.SC also directed his job at a govt hospital be restored with back wages. He was suspended after conviction. “A direction may be issued to chief medical officer, Sagar, MP to revoke the order of suspension and pay arrears of salary to the appellant,” it said.
