In an unusual turn of events, the Supreme Court of India has quashed a rape conviction, acting on what justices described as a "sixth sense" that the case stemmed from a consensual relationship gone awry. The ruling, delivered by a bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, invoked the court's powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to ensure complete justice in what they saw as an exceptional circumstance.
The case originated from a criminal appeal filed by a man challenging a Madhya Pradesh High Court order that had rejected his application for suspension of his sentence. He had been convicted under Sections 376(2)(n) (repeated rape) and 417 (cheating) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) following allegations by a woman who claimed he had sex with her under the false promise of marriage. The woman filed FIR No. 29 of 2021, which led to the initial conviction. The trial court sentenced him to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹50,000 under Section 376(2)(n) IPC, and a two-year sentence with a ₹5,000 fine under Section 417 IPC.
However, the situation took a surprising turn when the Supreme Court, during the hearing, "sensed" a possibility of reconciliation between the man and the woman. According to court records, the justices had a "sixth sense that the appellant and the prosecutrix could be brought together". Acting on this intuition, the court suggested that the parties explore the possibility of marriage.
Following interactions facilitated by the court, including discussions in the judges' chambers with both individuals and their parents present, both parties expressed a willingness to marry. The Supreme Court then granted the man bail to allow the marriage to proceed. The couple married on July 22, 2025, and began living together.
When the case was revisited in December, the court was informed that the couple was living together harmoniously. Taking this into account, the Supreme Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, which allows the court to pass orders necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it. The court noted that the case appeared to be a result of a "misunderstanding" that led to a consensual relationship being misinterpreted as a crime. The court then quashed the FIR, the judgment and order of conviction, and the sentence. The pending appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High Court was also rendered irrelevant.
In addition to quashing the conviction, the Supreme Court also addressed the appellant's employment situation. As his suspension from government service was a direct result of the conviction, the court ordered that his suspension be revoked and that he be paid all arrears in salary.
This unusual decision highlights the Supreme Court's willingness to look beyond the strict letter of the law in cases where it believes justice would be better served by considering the human elements involved. The court emphasized that not every failed relationship should be treated as a criminal offense. This case serves as a reminder of the complexities of relationships and the importance of ensuring that the legal system is applied fairly and with consideration for individual circumstances.
