The Jharkhand High Court recently refused to discharge a former teacher of a dead minor girl in a sexual harassment case. The girl was found dead in a pond the day after she went missing from her house late at night.
Initially, a rape and murder case was registered against the former teacher, however, on Investigation Officer’s final report, the trial court took cognizance only under Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
During the investigation, it came to light that the sister of the girl had given a statement that her boyfriend had abducted the victim from their house late at night. The next day, her dead body was found in the pond. However, the accused teacher was claimed to have sexually harassed the victim by many witnesses in the case.
The court noted that there was ample evidence on record against the accused teacher regarding sexual harassment. It was stated in the FIR that the teacher, having an inappropriate interest in the victim, used to make phone calls to her. When the same was reported to the victim’s school authorities, the school took action by removing him from his post, however, the teacher continued to pursue the victim and attempted to follow and communicate with her.
The court held that the accused teacher’s acts came within the periphery of section 11(4) of the POCSO Act, 2012 which amounts to sexual harassment as explained in section 2(J) of the POCSO Act, 2012, which is punishable under section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
It referred to Section 11(iv) of the POCSO Act, which states that “a person is said to commit the sexual harassment upon a child when such person with sexual intent repeatedly or consistently follows or watches or contacts a child either directly or through electronic, digital or any other means”.
The court further stated that it is a settled law while disposing of the discharge application of the accused the court should not appreciate the evidence on record. “It is also the settled law that even if there is sufficient material for the grave suspicion, the court should decline the discharge application,” it pointed out.
Therefore, the court held that the trial court had rightly dismissed the application for discharge filed by the accused teacher and this decision did not require any interference. Accordingly, the court dismissed the accused teacher’s criminal revision petition.
Comments
0 comment