The Supreme Court, invoking its inherent powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, set aside the sentence of the accused-appellant in a rape and kidnapping case, considering his marriage to the complainant and the fact that they have four children together.

The complainant had initially filed an FIR against three individuals, alleging criminal offenses, including rape and kidnapping, related to incidents from 1997. In 1999, the Trial Court convicted the appellant while acquitting the other two accused.

This conviction was later upheld by the High Court in 2019. The accused then challenged this decision by filing the present appeal.

In 2003, the appellant had married the victim.

Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that upholding his conviction would result in greater injustice, a position supported by the complainant. However, the state opposed these arguments, asserting that the victim was a minor at the time of the offense and that their subsequent marriage did not nullify the charges established against the accused.

The Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, after reviewing the submissions, observed that Article 142 of the Constitution grants special powers to issue orders for ensuring complete justice. The Court noted that this power should be exercised cautiously, considering the unique facts and circumstances of each case. Taking into account the appellant's subsequent marriage to the victim and their four children together, the Court invoked its inherent powers in this instance.

“Bearing in mind the fact that in this case, the appellant-accused has subsequently married the second respondent-prosecutrix and they have four children out of their wedlock, we find that the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case would persuade us to exercise our jurisdiction and powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India by following earlier dicta of this case in the aforesaid orders.,” the Court said.

To support its decision, the Court referenced the cases of K. Dhandapani vs. State by the Inspector of Police (2022 SCC Online SC 1056) and Dasari Srikanth vs. State of Telangana (2024 SCC Online SC 936), where similar facts had emerged, and the Court had invoked its power under Article 142 to quash the conviction of the appellant-accused.'

In view of this factual backdrop, the Court set aside the impugned judgments while acquitting the present appellant.

Case Name: SHRIRAM URAV v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH., CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 41/2021

Appearances:

For the Appellant:
Mr. Arvind Kumar, AOR

For the Respondent:
Mr. Bharat Bhushan, AOR
Mr. Keshav Bansal, Adv.
Mr. Apoorv Shukla, AOR
Mr. Puneet Chahar, Adv.
Ms. Prabhleen A. Shukla, Adv.