K. Kirubakaran vs State Of Tamil Nadu

2025 INSC 1272 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 679 OF 2024

K. KIRUBAKARAN … APPELLANT

VS.

STATE OF TAMIL NADU … RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

The final cause of law is the welfare of society.

~ Benjamin N. Cardozo, Former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of United States.

1. Appellant was convicted for offences punishable under section 366 of

the Indian Penal Code, 1872 and section 6 of the Protection of Children

from Sexual Offences Act, 20121 and sentenced to rigorous

imprisonment for 5 years and 10 years, respectively, with fine.

Aggrieved by such conviction and sentence, the appellant preferred an

appeal before the High Court of Judicature at Madras. It was dismissed Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NITIN TALREJA Date: 2025.10.30 16:51:56 IST vide the impugned judgment and order dated 13th September, 2021. Reason: 1 POCSO Act

2. During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, marriage

between the appellant and the victim of crime was solemnized in May

2021. By an order dated 6th February 2024, this Court had directed the

Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority2 to ascertain the well-being

of the appellant’s wife. Pursuant thereto, the Member Secretary of the

TNSLSA interacted with the appellant’s wife and has submitted a report

revealing that after marriage the appellant and his wife have been

blessed with a male child, who is less than one year old, and also that

they are leading a happy married life.

3. Wife of the appellant has filed an affidavit before this Court stating that

she is dependent upon the appellant and wishes to lead a happy, normal,

and peaceful life with him and the child born in their wedlock.

4. During the course of hearing, a prayer was made on behalf of the

appellant to invoke the powers of this Court under Article 142 of the

Constitution of India for quashing the conviction and sentence in order

to avoid disruption of the matrimonial harmony between the parties. We

considered it appropriate to first hear the complainant, being the father

of the victim. He has appeared before us today through the virtual mode.

Answering our query, he has stated in Tamil (conveyed to us by Mr.

Krishnamoorthy, learned senior counsel for the State) that he has no

objection to the criminal proceedings being brought to an end.

2 TNSLSA

2

5. The only question which remains to be decided is whether the

proceedings should be quashed in the present case, considering that the

appellant is convicted of a heinous offence.

6. We are conscious of the fact that 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 the society and

therefore the society, acting through its elected lawmakers, determines

what would be the punishment for such an offence and how an offender

should be dealt with, to deter its recurrence. The criminal law is, thus, a

manifestation of the sovereign will of the society. However, the

administration of such law is not divorced from the practical realities.

Rendering justice demands a nuanced approach. This Court tailors its

decisions to the specifics of each case: with firmness and severity

wherever necessary and it is merciful when warranted. It is also in the

best interest of society to bring a dispute to an end, wherever possible.

We draw inspiration from Cardozo, J. to hold that the law aims to ensure

not just punishment of the guilty, but also harmony and restoration of

the social order.

7. With such perspective in mind, we need to proceed to balance the

competing interests of justice, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

8. The founding fathers of the Constitution conferred this Court with the

extraordinary power to do “complete justice” in proper cases. This

constitutional power stands apart from all other powers and is intended

3 to avoid situations of injustice being caused by the rigid application of

law.

9. Per the law made by the legislature, the appellant having been found

guilty of a heinous offence, the proceedings in the present case on the

basis of a compromise between the appellant and his wife cannot be

quashed. But ignoring the cry of the appellant’s wife for compassion and

empathy will not, in our opinion, serve the ends of justice. Even the most

serious offenders of law do receive justice moderated by compassion

from the courts, albeit in appropriate cases. Given the peculiar facts and

circumstances here, a balanced approach combining practicality and

empathy is necessary. The appellant and the victim are not only legally

married, they are also in their family way. 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. The victim

of crime herself has expressed her desire to live a peaceful and stable

family life with the appellant, upon whom she is dependent, without the

appellant carrying the indelible mark on his forehead of being an

offender. 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.

10. We are, thus, persuaded to hold that this is a case where the law must

yield to the cause of justice.

11. Accordingly, resting on the foregoing considerations, the developments

subsequent to the trial, and in the interest of rendering complete justice,

4 we deem it appropriate to invoke our powers under Article 142 of the

Constitution of India to quash the criminal proceedings against the

appellant including the conviction and sentence. Ordered accordingly.

12. Also, bearing in mind the interests of the appellant’s wife and child, we

deem it appropriate to subject the appellant to the specific condition of

not deserting his wife and child and also to maintain them for the rest

of their life with dignity. If, in future, there be any default on the

appellant’s part and the same is brought to the notice of this Court by

his wife or their child or the complainant, the consequences may not be

too palatable for the appellant.

13. We make the interim order granting benefit to the appellant of

exemption from surrendering absolute and discharge him from the bail

bonds.

14. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

15. Needless to observe, 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.

………..…………………J. (DIPANKAR DATTA)

……………………..………………J. (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)

NEW DELHI;

OCTOBER 28, 2025.

5