Case Note & Summary
The appellant was convicted by the Special Fast Track Court, Suryapet for offences under Sections 354D (stalking) and 506 Part I (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The trial court acquitted him of charges under the POCSO Act. The High Court of Telangana partly allowed his appeal, upholding the conviction but reducing the sentence to three months' imprisonment for each offence. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant and the complainant (victim) married each other on 6th August 2023 as per Hindu rites, and the marriage was registered on 23rd September 2023. The Supreme Court verified this fact through the police. The Court noted that the offences under Sections 354D and 506 IPC are personal to the complainant, and the marriage indicated a prior relationship. The Court held that affirming the conviction would send the appellant to jail, endangering the matrimonial relationship. Exercising its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court quashed the conviction and acquitted the appellant, setting aside the judgments of the trial court and the High Court. The appeal was allowed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Quashing of Conviction - Article 142 of the Constitution of India - Marriage between accused and complainant - The appellant was convicted under Sections 354D and 506 IPC. During pendency of appeal, the appellant and complainant married. The Supreme Court held that affirming the conviction would endanger the matrimonial relationship. Exercising powers under Article 142, the Court quashed the conviction and acquitted the appellant to protect the marriage. (Paras 7-11)
B) Criminal Law - Stalking and Criminal Intimidation - Sections 354D and 506 Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Personal Offences - The offences under Sections 354D and 506 IPC are personal to the complainant. The marriage between the appellant and complainant indicated a prior relationship, and the Court found it appropriate to quash the conviction to avoid adverse consequences on the marriage. (Paras 7-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Sections 354D and 506 IPC should be quashed in light of the subsequent marriage between the appellant and the complainant.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the conviction, and acquitted the appellant. The judgments of the trial court and High Court were set aside.
Law Points
- Article 142 of the Constitution of India
- Quashing of conviction on ground of marriage between accused and complainant
- Offences personal to complainant
- Protection of matrimonial relationship
Case Details
2024 LawText (SC) (5) 158
Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 10111 of 2023
Gowtham Polanki, Snehasish Mukherjee, Devina Sehgal, Dhananjay Yadav
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Criminal appeal against conviction for stalking and criminal intimidation.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought quashing of conviction and acquittal.
Filing Reason
Appellant was convicted under Sections 354D and 506 IPC; High Court reduced sentence but upheld conviction.
Previous Decisions
Trial court convicted appellant under Sections 354D and 506 IPC, acquitted under POCSO Act. High Court upheld conviction, reduced sentence to three months.
Issues
Whether the conviction should be quashed due to subsequent marriage between appellant and complainant.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that he and the complainant married during pendency of appeal, and conviction would endanger matrimonial relationship.
State confirmed the marriage through police verification.
Ratio Decidendi
The offences under Sections 354D and 506 IPC are personal to the complainant. The marriage between the appellant and complainant indicates a prior relationship. Affirming the conviction would send the appellant to jail, endangering the matrimonial relationship. Therefore, the Supreme Court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to quash the conviction and acquit the appellant.
Judgment Excerpts
The fact that the appellant and the complainant have married each other during the pendency of this appeal gives rise to a reasonable belief that both were involved in some kind of relationship even when the offences alleged were said to have been committed.
Since, the appellant and the complainant have married each other, the affirmation of the judgment rendered by the High Court would have the disastrous consequence on the accused appellant being sent to jail which in turn could put his matrimonial relationship with the complainant in danger.
As a consequence, we are inclined to exercise the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India for quashing the conviction of the accused appellant as recorded by the learned trial Court and modified by the High Court.
Procedural History
The appellant was tried by the Special Fast Track Court, Suryapet, which convicted him under Sections 354D and 506 IPC on 9th April 2021. The High Court of Telangana partly allowed his appeal on 27th June 2023, upholding conviction but reducing sentence. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court. During pendency, the appellant and complainant married. The Supreme Court verified the marriage and quashed the conviction on 16th April 2024.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 354D, 506 Part I
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012: 11, 12
- Constitution of India: 142
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955:
