<p>A recent Supreme Court judgement that spared a convict from sentence under the POCSO Act on the ground that the survivor – who was 14 years old at the time of the offence in 2018 – did not treat it as a heinous crime, and both have since married and she has become the mother of his child, may be considered a rarest of the rare verdict. </p><p>The Court said if the accused was sent to jail, the worst sufferer would be the victim herself and so, using its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142, decided that true justice lay in not sentencing the accused to undergo imprisonment. It is a complex case that moved from a district court, which convicted <br>the man, through the Calcutta High Court which acquitted him, to the Supreme Court which convicted him but let <br>him go free.</p>.<p>The girl’s mother had rejected her and she lived with the convict and their daughter. She wanted to give the daughter education and a good life and took pains to protect the convict, borrowing money for his legal expenses. The Court felt that the victim had already been subjected to “grave injustice, not only by society and her own family but also by the legal system itself” and that the only way to do justice to her was not to separate her from her daughter’s father. It was aware that in law, there was no option but to sentence the accused but said that “as judges, we cannot shut our eyes to these harsh realities.” The reality could only be the human situation involved which the judges, as humans, could not overlook. This is a nuanced view of justice. It could show that justice might differ from case to case, and its meaning has to be sought in the human context where it plays out. The law does not always ensure justice. This was a case where the court was looking for justice beyond the law. It also sought to emphasise the social nature of its idea of justice by ordering the State to support the family and the child’s education.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The Court has said that its judgement should not be taken as a precedent, but there would be a debate on it. The bench which delivered the judgement was composed of Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan. Would two other judges have looked at this human situation the same way? Does that make the judgement subjective? Does justice have a subjective dimension? Another court may look for justice beyond the law in another human story that might come up before it.</p>
<p>A recent Supreme Court judgement that spared a convict from sentence under the POCSO Act on the ground that the survivor – who was 14 years old at the time of the offence in 2018 – did not treat it as a heinous crime, and both have since married and she has become the mother of his child, may be considered a rarest of the rare verdict. </p><p>The Court said if the accused was sent to jail, the worst sufferer would be the victim herself and so, using its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 142, decided that true justice lay in not sentencing the accused to undergo imprisonment. It is a complex case that moved from a district court, which convicted <br>the man, through the Calcutta High Court which acquitted him, to the Supreme Court which convicted him but let <br>him go free.</p>.<p>The girl’s mother had rejected her and she lived with the convict and their daughter. She wanted to give the daughter education and a good life and took pains to protect the convict, borrowing money for his legal expenses. The Court felt that the victim had already been subjected to “grave injustice, not only by society and her own family but also by the legal system itself” and that the only way to do justice to her was not to separate her from her daughter’s father. It was aware that in law, there was no option but to sentence the accused but said that “as judges, we cannot shut our eyes to these harsh realities.” The reality could only be the human situation involved which the judges, as humans, could not overlook. This is a nuanced view of justice. It could show that justice might differ from case to case, and its meaning has to be sought in the human context where it plays out. The law does not always ensure justice. This was a case where the court was looking for justice beyond the law. It also sought to emphasise the social nature of its idea of justice by ordering the State to support the family and the child’s education.</p>.<p class="bodytext">The Court has said that its judgement should not be taken as a precedent, but there would be a debate on it. The bench which delivered the judgement was composed of Abhay S. Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan. Would two other judges have looked at this human situation the same way? Does that make the judgement subjective? Does justice have a subjective dimension? Another court may look for justice beyond the law in another human story that might come up before it.</p>
