Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on Monday observed that an act of sexual harassment of a girl student (who is also a minor) by any teacher would figure quite high in the list of offences of grave nature since it has far-reaching consequences, which impact more than just the parties to the proceeding.

Court has made this observation while setting aside the conviction of a school teacher from Tamil Nadu while noting that the evidence in the case had been marred by inadequacies from the outset, evident in contradictions within statements and testimonies.

In the instant case, the accused was convicted under section 12 of the POCSO Act by the sessions court. Allegedly, the accused, a Tamil teacher, had approached the victim, and forcefully presented her with roses, jasmine flowers, and chocolate in the presence of fellow students on February 14, 2018 at around 10.15 AM. On her refusal, the accused teacher had resorted to twisting her arm, coercing her into accepting the same.

While finding the evidence on record to be sufficient to record conviction, a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta, KV Vishwanathan and Sandeep Mehta has said, "...it is axiomatic that reputation is earned by a teacher upon rendering service over the years and an accusation like the present would remain as an indelible mark marring his entire future life. Care has, therefore, to be taken so that his right to live a life of dignity and personal liberty are not put to jeopardy on the basis of half-baked evidence."

Taking a close look at the overall picture, court drew an inference that the prosecution's case had been marked by lacklustre efforts, revealing a poorly executed endeavour that gave rise to substantial doubts regarding the integrity of the case.

"The material contradictions apparent in the depositions of prosecution witnesses, including the victim, significantly undermine the credibility of the prosecution version. These inconsistencies in the prosecution's narrative, render it considerably doubtful. On the face of such evident discrepancies, recording conviction becomes untenable, as the foundation of the case crumbles under the weight of doubt. While we might have chosen to overlook other contradictions and solely relied on the victim's account, considering her as a ‘sterling witness’, her version appears muddled and prevaricated, much less coherent..", the three-judge bench added.

Court however noted that the actions attributed to the accused, of forcibly giving flowers, may fall within the purview of 'sexual harassment' under section 11 of the POCSO Act.

Case Title: NIRMAL PREMKUMAR & ANR. vs.  STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE