School Lifeguard Gets Double Life Term for Rape of 3-Year-Old; Management to Pay Rs. 10 Lakh
Supreme Court observes that non-penetrative acts do not qualify as rape under the POCSO Act
A special POCSO court in Greater Noida has convicted and sentenced a former swimming pool lifeguard at a reputed school chain’s Greater Noida campus to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life for the 2018 sexual assault of a three year old student.
Judge Vijay Kumar Himanshu, presiding over the additional district and sessions court-cum-special POCSO court, on Tuesday awarded Chandidas a double life term, one under Section 376AB of the IPC and another under Section 5(m) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, which deals with aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a child under 12 years of age.
Chandidas, who was out on bail during the trial, was also sentenced to seven years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 9(f) read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act for abusing his position as a school employee.
The court imposed a fine of Rs. 24,000 on him and directed the school’s managing society to pay Rs. 10 lakh in compensation to the survivor for rehabilitation within one month, in line with National Legal Services Authority guidelines.
The incident took place on July 12, 2018, during a swimming class at the school’s splash pool.
The child, then in nursery, reported the assault to her class teacher and later told her mother about “the swimming pool uncle” touching her private parts. She complained of stomach pain and discomfort upon returning home. A medical examination at Delhi’s Guru Teg Bahadur Hospital confirmed penetrative sexual assault.
An FIR was lodged the next day at Surajpur police station, and Chandidas was arrested from the school principal’s office.
Special Public Prosecutor (POCSO) Chhavanpal Singh told the court that the prosecution examined 12 witnesses and produced 14 documentary and electronic exhibits. He sought the maximum sentence for Chandidas and held the school accountable for failing in its duty of care as custodian of its students.
The defence argued that the allegations were fabricated due to a grudge the child’s family bore against the school and claimed the child had been tutored, alleging the medical evidence did not support the charges.
However, the court found the survivor’s statements to the police, magistrate, and in court consistent and credible, corroborated by the medical findings from GTB Hospital.
Testimony from her parents further reinforced her account.
In a strong indictment of the institution’s role, the court described the school management as a “joint tortfeasor,” noting that its inaction and attempts at suppression directly aggravated the survivor’s trauma. Invoking its powers under Section 33(8) read with Section 9 of the POCSO Act, the court held the management vicariously liable, observing: “Their attempt to suppress and influence the machinery is clearly apparent and palpable, which cannot be done without the active connivance of the school management society.”
The judgment also turned the spotlight on the conduct of the two investigating officers, Sita Singh and Rashmi Chaudhary, finding their investigation “defective and motivated.”
The court noted that they had filed a closure report against the principal and class teacher despite evidence on record. It held that their deliberate omissions, aimed at shielding the co-accused, amounted to abetment of the offence of sexual assault under Section 17 of the POCSO Act, thereby declaring them co-accused in the case.