JUDGMENT (ORAL)

VIMAL KUMAR YADAV, J.

“What God has achieved through the Ten Commandments,

Man has failed to achieve in millions of laws”

-William Pitt

Men made laws have failed to do comprehensive, complete and acceptable justice. The provision of amendments introduced in various Statutes are ample proof of the vulnerability of Statutes. Incidentally, no amendment can be claimed to be the last, howsoever, latest it may be. As such, some sort of mechanism is in practically every Statute to take care of unforeseen and incomprehensible situations. It reflects the limitations of human comprehension and foresight and of the legal provisions. And that seems to be the reason that one or the other provision is there in the Statutes to take care of such situations. The discretionary provisions and flexibility provided to the Courts are all aimed to secure the ends of justice, real, substantial, comprehensive and acceptable to not only the contesting sides, but the general conscience of the society too.

While relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in K. Kirubakaran vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2307 and Sandeep Singh Thakur vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2927, it is submitted that, the instant appeal is a fit case where the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court should be invoked to do the substantial and effective justice, befitting in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

The Appellant was held guilty under Sections 363/365/366/376 Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC) vide Judgment dated 19.07.2013 and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 8,000/- and in default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 2 years for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. He was also sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 4,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 1 year for the offence punishable under Section 363 IPC. He was further sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 4,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 1 year for the offence punishable under Section 365 IPC. Additionally, he was also sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 4,000/-, and in default of payment of fine, he was to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 1 year for the offence punishable under Section 366 IPC vide Order on Sentence dated 20.07.2013. All sentences were to run concurrently.

The appeal preferred on behalf of the Appellant, was supported by the prosecutrix by way of an affidavit placed on record, wherein it was stated that she has no objection if the FIR in question or the order on sentence was set aside, inasmuch as she had married the Appellant and was residing separately from her family owing to their disapproval of the relationship. The said position was taken note of at the relevant stage and considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of the Appellant was suspended vide order dated 19.11.2013, subject to conditions.

Subsequently, it has been brought on record that the Appellant and the prosecutrix have solemnized their marriage and are residing together as husband and wife. It has further been placed on record that they have been cohabiting for a considerable period and have been blessed with 03 children out of the said wedlock, thereby reflecting the existence of a stable and settled domestic life.

Against this backdrop, the Appellant along-with the prosecutrix has appeared before the Court and it has been submitted that they are living together peacefully as a family. The prosecutrix, who is now the legally wedded spouse of the Appellant, has unequivocally supported him and has stated