Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Kerala High Court has quashed charges against a school principal and teacher for allegedly failing to report the commission of sexual abuse upon a minor student on the same day, ruling that reporting the crime to the police with one-day delay was not sufficient to invoke Section 19 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, which mandates the Reporting of offences.

The court, presided over by a Single Judge bench of Justice A. Badharudeen, ruled that reporting the crime to the police the next day did not constitute wilful omission. The court noted : “on getting information regarding the crime, if the matter is reported to the police on the next day, it is harsh to hold that there was failure to inform/report the crime to the police so that offence under Section 19 r/w 21 of the Police Act would get attracted. If the omission is only for a day fastening criminal culpability on the accused for the said short omission could not be justified.”

The case involved a minor student who complained to the principal on November 17, 2022, about sexual assault and harassment by the first accused. The principal and teacher informed the police the next day. The principal and the school teacher, identified as Accused Nos. 2 and 3, respectively, contended that the First Information Report (FIR) registered on November 18, 2022, was based on a complaint submitted by the victim to the school Principal on November 17, 2022, concerning an incident that occurred on November 16, 2022. According to the petitioners, there was no evidence to suggest that they were reluctant or willfully delayed reporting the incident to the authorities. The petitioners emphasised that the First Information Statement (FIS) filed by the school counsellor did not indicate any failure or hesitance on the part of the petitioners to inform the police. Therefore, it was argued that the charges under Section 21 read with Section 19 of the POCSO Act, were not applicable, and the proceedings should be quashed.

Opposing the petitioners' claims, the Public Prosecutor M.P. Prasanth, highlighted that while the initial statement did not indicate hesitation, a later statement from the school counsellor alleged that the principal hesitated to report, concerned about the victim’s distress and the impact on the accused’s family. The counsellor also claimed that the teacher tried to avoid initiating a criminal case.

The prosecution pointed out that a meeting was held at the school on November 18, 2022, involving school staff, the PTA President, and the Municipal Vice Chairman. During this meeting, it was decided to proceed with filing a complaint. Subsequently, the counsellor approached the police station at around 2:30 pm on the same day, leading to the registration of the FIR at 10:50 pm.

The court observed that the initial FIS did not disclose any delay or reluctance on the part of the Principal and Shylaja Teacher in reporting the incident. However, the court took note of the additional statement provided by the school counsellor, which raised concerns about the actions of the petitioners. The counsellor's statement indicated that the Principal's hesitation stemmed from a belief that reporting the incident would subject the victim to repeated court appearances, thereby causing her further distress. Additionally, the Principal's stance appeared to be influenced by sympathy towards the first accused, citing potential harm to his family if the matter was reported.

The court acknowledged that “even after getting information to report the crime to the Police atleast within 24 hours, the offence punishable under Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act would get attracted.” However, it further noted that holding the petitioners liable for a one-day delay was harsh. The court stated, “willful omission on the part of the petitioners in informing the crime as alleged could not be found to rope the petitioners into this crime with the aid of Section 19 r/w 21 of the Police Act.”

Conclusively, the court allowed the petition of the petitioners while quashing the Final Report against them.

 

Cause Title: XXX v State of Kerala