On September 25, 2025, the Supreme Court of India, heard by Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, heard Criminal Appeal No. 679/2024 filed by K. Kirubakaran against the State of Tamil Nadu. The court reserved its orders in a case related to convictions under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, while granting the appellant interim bail.

Kirubakaran was convicted by a trial court, which was confirmed by the appellate court, for crimes under the POCSO Act and IPC with sentences of 10 years and 7 years, respectively, along with a fine. The appeal is against these convictions, which question the dispensing of justice in light of the peculiar facts of the case.

   

The court was brought to the attention of a letter from the Tamil Nadu State Legal Services Authority (TNSLSA), dated April 1, 2024, filed in accordance with a February 6, 2024 order. The Member Secretary of the TNSLSA stated that the victim, who is currently married to Kirubakaran, attested that the marriage was voluntary, entered into after turning 18 years old. The victim and her husband have a seven-month-old son, and she proclaimed happiness and no conflicts with her husband.

The bench pointed to the danger of "irreversible consequences" to the victim's matrimonial bliss if the conviction was allowed to stand without an investigation. To assure an equitable decision, the court chose to listen to the complainant, Sriram, the victim's father, before contemplating its authority under Article 142 of the Constitution to alter the verdict.

The TNSLSA Member Secretary shall arrange Sriram's virtual presence before the Court in the next hearing scheduled on October 28, 2025, at 12:00 noon.

Kirubakaran's interim bail, which was extended on February 6, 2024, stands till the disposal of the appeal.

This interim order reflects the Supreme Court’s cautious approach in balancing legal consequences with the victim’s current familial situation. The decision to involve the complainant underscores the judiciary’s commitment to comprehensive fact-finding. The upcoming hearing will be pivotal in determining whether the court opts for a resolution that aligns with both justice and the victim’s well-being.