A landmark reminder by the Apex Court that laws meant to protect children should not destroy families. The Kirubakaran case shows why India needs a more humane, context-based POCSO framework.
The Supreme Court of India quashes POCSO the conviction of a man sentenced under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act in a rare exercise of its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. The court acknowledged that the relationship was based on love rather than lust and that the couple, who were now married and had a child, should have been given the opportunity to live a peaceful life together.
On October 28, 2025, a bench consisting of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih rendered a decision in the case of K. Kirubakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu.
Facts of the Case
In this matter, K. Kirubakaran was found guilty of eloping with and allegedly sexually abusing a minor girl in violation of Section 6 of the POCSO Act and Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 5 years (IPC) and 10 years (POCSO). In May 2021, he married the victim while his appeal was still pending before the Madras High Court. Later, the couple gave birth to a boy.
The Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority (TNSLSA) verified that the couple were living happily with their infant.
In an affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court, the wife, who’s the victim, claimed she was dependent on her husband, that she wished to stay with him, and that she wanted the criminal case to end for the benefit of their family.
The appeal before the Supreme Court sought to invoke Article 142 of the Constitution to quash the conviction. Even the complainant, the victim’s father, virtually appeared during the hearing and informed the court that he had no issues with the proceedings coming to an end.
Court’s Findings
As the courtroom fell silent, Justice Dipankar Datta opened the judgment with a line borrowed from American jurist Benjamin N. Cardozo and those words set the tone for what followed a decision not merely rooted in statutes, but in human reality: “The final cause of law is the welfare of society.”
The Bench acknowledged :
K. Kirubakaran had indeed been convicted of a heinous offence under Section 366 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, punishable by long imprisonment. Yet, life had moved on he had married the victim, and together they had a child.
They also called for a report from the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority, which confirmed that the couple were “leading a happy married life.” The victim herself filed an affidavit declaring she was dependent on her husband and wished to continue “a happy, normal, and peaceful life” with him. Even her father the original complainant appeared virtually and stated he had no objection to ending the case.
Judges’ reasoning was noted as: “A crime is not merely a wrong against an individual but against society as a whole. When an offence is committed, it wounds the collective conscience of society. However, the administration of such law is not divorced from practical realities.”
They reminded that justice must sometimes temper punishment with understanding: “This Court tailors its decisions to the specifics of each case with firmness and severity wherever necessary, and it is merciful when warranted.”
The Bench added: “While considering the offence committed by the appellant punishable under the POCSO Act, we have discerned that the crime was not the result of lust but love.”
Continuing the conviction, they said, would serve no purpose: “Continuation of the criminal proceedings and the appellant’s incarceration would only disrupt this familial unit and cause irreparable harm to the victim, the infant child, and the fabric of society itself.”
Balancing justice and mercy, the Court reached its humane conclusion: “We are persuaded to hold that this is a case where the law must yield to the cause of justice.”
Invoking its extraordinary power under Article 142 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court quashed the conviction and sentence, ensuring what it called “complete justice.” But compassion came with caution. The judges imposed a solemn condition: “The appellant shall not desert his wife and child and shall maintain them for the rest of their life with dignity. If, in future, there be any default, the consequences may not be too palatable for the appellant.”
Finally, before rising, the Bench added a note that defines the limits of this extraordinary relief: “This order is rendered in the unique circumstances that have unfolded before us and shall not be treated as a precedent for any other case.”
Legal Significance of this Judgement
In this decision, the Supreme Court prioritised compassion and rehabilitation over severe retribution, marking one of the few times it has used Article 142 to overturn a conviction under the POCSO Act. From a broader perspective: the Court recognised that even when a relationship is based on mutual affection, it can occasionally be mistakenly classified as a crime involving young people.
The idea that justice should change depending on the situation was reaffirmed, particularly when the victim herself is in favour of reconciliation. It demonstrates that families that have already been reconstructed through marriage and parenthood shouldn’t be shattered by punishment. However, the Court was cautious to prevent abuse, emphasising that this ruling does not grant a broad immunity from liability for POCSO offences.
Explanatory Table of Laws, Sections & Principles Referenced
| Law / Provision | Section / Citation | Explanation / Relevance in this Case |
| Indian Penal Code (IPC) | Section 366 | Deals with kidnapping or inducing a woman to compel marriage; one of the charges quashed. |
| Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act 2012 | Section 6 | Punishes aggravated penetrative sexual assault; conviction quashed considering post-trial marriage and affidavit of victim. |
| Constitution of India | Article 142 | Empowers the Supreme Court to pass orders to do complete justice; invoked to quash conviction. |
Case Summary
- Case Title: K. Kirubakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta & Justice Augustine George Masih
- Case Type: Criminal Appeal
- Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 679 of 2024
- Date of Judgment: October 28, 2025
- Citation: 2025 INSC 1272
Result: Conviction and sentence quashed under Article 142; appellant ordered to maintain wife and child; judgment not to be treated as precedent.
Question in issue: Whether the Supreme Court can quash a POCSO conviction under Article 142 when the accused has married the victim and they are living together peacefully with a child?
A Case That Teaches Why POCSO Needs Humanity
Because this case is not just about one man’s acquittal it’s about how law and humanity can coexist. Every citizen should read K. Kirubakaran v. State of Tamil Nadu to understand that justice is not always about punishment; sometimes it’s about restoration, empathy, and second chances.
The Supreme Court reminded us that when the law becomes too rigid, it risks breaking the very lives it was meant to protect. The Bench’s words “the crime was not the result of lust but of love” show that courts can still see the human story behind a case file.
For young people, parents, activists, and lawmakers alike, this judgment is a call to rethink POCSO’s one-size-fits-all approach, to distinguish genuine exploitation from consensual affection, and to build a legal system that safeguards not just children but also compassion, family, and fairness.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advise.