Sakina Tashrifwala
Published on: 11 November at 19:24 IST
The Gujarat High Court dismissed case filed under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act (POCSO Act) cases against a teacher, a principal. The court reasoned that simple harsh treatment, such as slapping or removing a child from class, would not qualify as “sexual assault” under the POCSO Act.
The Single Judge Justice Niral Mehta was dealing with this matter, where the teachers and principal of a school in Surat were allegedly accused of slapping a female student, verbally abusing her, and threatening to broadcast a video of her straightening her skirt to other students and parents..
Despite the aggressive behaviour of the defendants, the judge ruled that there was no “sexual purpose” on their behalf. The judge stated in his word –
“If we consider the complaint, there is no allegation whatsoever in nature against the present petitioners that they have extended misappropriate / bad touch to the victim. Its plain reading would prima facie, suggest that the management of the school have extended harsh treatment to the child under the guise of disciplinary issues.“
“However, although the said conduct on the part of the school management is said to be harsh and disproportionate, but, certainly, cannot be said to be falling within the four corners of the provisions of the POCSO Act,”
The Court stated that even if the entire complaint were to be accepted in its current form, it would not demonstrate any sexual intent on the part of the accused.
Further, the judge supported his reasoning adding that the fundamental component—sexual intention—is entirely absent from the entire complaint. Although the POCSO Act’s explanation annexed to Section 11 makes clear that “sexual purpose” is an issue of fact, the aforementioned fact still needs to be averred in the complaint in order for the requisite evidence to be led in court to support it.
Bench was hearing a plea filed by the school teachers and principal challenging the summons and proceedings initiated against them by a sessions court under Sections 7 and 11 of the POCSO Act, which pertain to sexual harassment.
The accuser emphasised how the youngster frequently engaged in inappropriate behaviour in classrooms and was penalised as a result. It was alleged that for various reasons, parents were bringing up fictitious lawsuits against the administration of the school.
The court believed that the sessions judge had improperly applied his perspective to the facts of the case when he issued the summons in the case.
The court observes that, “The Sessions Judge appears to have issued summonses without using its discretion and in a robotic fashion. In my opinion, the Sessions Judge should not have issued the summons in such a casual manner, which would amount to harassment to the individual who is called and placed on trial for such a serious offence, when the essential elements under the requirements of the POCSO Act do not exist “
As a result, the Court quashed the POCSO Act’s proceedings and upheld the accusation against the defendant for violations of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).