Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 579
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos. 12563-12566 of 2022)
X ETC. … APPELLANTS
Versus
RAJESH KUMAR & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. This case is a glaring example of denial of justice to
the victims of offences under the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, `the POCSO Act’), and
possibly certain provisions of the Indian Penal Code (for short,
`IPC’). The victims were students in a school in Tirur, where
respondent No.1 was a Computer Teacher. It was alleged that he
behaved inappropriately with the female students of the school
besides asking obnoxious questions like how many sanitary napkins
they had used in a year. It was alleged that he would hold the
hands of the students in the computer lab while using mouse in the
lab and do other inappropriate actions. The female students made
complaints to the Principal of the school, who directed the Head of
the Department to inspect the computer lab where several women’s
magazines and CDs containing questionable content were recovered.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SATISH KUMAR YADAV
Date: 2025.04.28
17:34:12 IST
Reason:
A show-cause notice was issued to respondent No.1, who is stated to
have apologized and promised to improve his conduct in future.
3. Respondent No.1, however, allegedly did not mend his ways
2
and continued to misbehave with the female students to the extent
that he sent vulgar and obscene images on the whatsApp group,
thinking that these numbers belong to the students whereas the
students had actually given the numbers of their parents. Again
complaints were made; the police was called and respondent No.1 was
arrested. It seems that respondent No.1 exerted some influence, as
the statements of all the victim students were not recorded, except
that of a 19 year’s old student. The Parents Teachers Association
then filed a Writ Petition before the High Court and it was only
upon judicial intervention that an FIR was finally registered
against respondent No.1. Shockingly, respondent No.1 claimed to
have entered into a settlement with the 19 year’s old student, and
based upon that, he sought quashing of the FIR before the High
Court. Meanwhile, the statements of some of the victim students
were recorded and based thereupon, five separate FIRs, i.e., FIR
Crime Nos. 291, 292, 293, 294 and 295 of 2017, were registered
against respondent No.1 on the same day, i.e., 04.04.2017 at Tirur
Police Station under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act. As stated
earlier, FIR Crime No.294/2017 was `settled’ by respondent No.1
with the victim, who was stated to be 19 years’ old student.
Respondent No.1, thereafter, approached the High Court seeking
quashing of the remaining FIRs and vide the impugned judgment, the
High Court has, after holding a mini trial and after taking note of
the contents of the statements alleged to have been made by the
victims at the preliminary stage, come to a conclusion that “it is
not possible to infer or impute that the said act has been done by
the petitioner with any sexual intent.”
3
4. All that we wish to observe at this stage is that the
High Court ought not to have ignored the fact that respondent No.1
was a teacher and the victims were his students. The preliminary
statements recorded before the Police Authorities reveal that prima
facie ingredients of offences under the POCSO Act, for the purpose
of subjecting respondent No.1 to a trial, are made out. We are fail
to understand as to how the High Court construed that Section 7 of
the POCSO Act will not be attracted unless there is an act
involving physical contact with sexual intent. Section 7 of the
POCSO Act defines ‘sexual assailt’ to include situations where a
person `with sexual intent touches the vagina, penis, anus or
breast of the child or makes the child touch the vagina, penis,
anus or breast of such person or any other person, or does any
other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact
without penetration’. The allegations that respondent No.1 would
hold the hands of female students in the computer lab while using
the mouse clearly falls within the ambit of `any other act with
sexual intent which involves physical contact’. In the context of a
teacher-student relationship, where the teacher is in a position of
authority and trust, such physical contact, when accompanied by
other inappropriate behavior including asking invasive questions
about sanitary napkins and sending vulgar images, provides
sufficient basis to infer sexual intent for the purpose of
proceeding with trial. The issue has been apparently pre-judged by
the High Court without even permitting the victims to enter witness
box and depose about various instances, which are briefly noted in
their preliminary statements.
4
5. We refrain from making further observations at this stage
as they may prejudice respondent No.1 or anyone else. Regardless
thereto, we have no reason to doubt that this was a fit case where
respondent No.1 ought to have been subjected to trial by ensuring
that the identity of the victims was not revealed, they are treated
as protected witnesses and their statements to be recorded at the
earliest. This is extremely important keeping in view the fact
that respondent No.1 has successfully prevailed upon one of the
victims, who allegedly “settled the dispute” and paved the way for
respondent No.1 to get one of the cases quashed.
6. It is pertinent to note that well before the impugned
judgment of the High Court, the investigation was complete and the
chargesheet had been filed and even the statements of some of the
victims, under Section 164 Cr.P.C., had already been recorded.
Unfortunately, all these aspects were not highlighted before the
High Court.
7. For the reasons aforestated, and without going into
further details, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set
aside, and the Trial Court before whom the chargesheets have been
filed, is directed to proceed with the trial. The matter regarding
framing of charges shall be concluded within two weeks. The Trial
Court is further directed to take up the matter at least twice in a
month and first of all record the statements of all the alleged
victims.
8. The prosecution will ensure that the victims are treated
as protected witnesses. Respondent No.1 shall not be permitted, in
any manner, to contact the victims and/or influence them directly
5
or indirectly.
9. The Management of the M.M.M. Higher Secondary School,
Koottayi is directed to keep respondent No.1 under suspension till
the conclusion of trial. The Management, however, shall be at
liberty to hold domestic enquiry against respondent No.1 in
accordance with the prescribed rules independent of the criminal
prosecution restored by us. Ordered accordingly.
10. The appeals stand allowed in the above terms.
11. As a result, the pending interlocutory application also
stands disposed of.
......................……...J.
(SURYA KANT)
..............……......……...J.
(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 23, 2025.
REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 579
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos. 12563-12566 of 2022)
X ETC. … APPELLANTS
Versus
RAJESH KUMAR & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
O R D E R
1. Leave granted.
2. This case is a glaring example of denial of justice to
the victims of offences under the Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, `the POCSO Act’), and
possibly certain provisions of the Indian Penal Code (for short,
`IPC’). The victims were students in a school in Tirur, where
respondent No.1 was a Computer Teacher. It was alleged that he
behaved inappropriately with the female students of the school
besides asking obnoxious questions like how many sanitary napkins
they had used in a year. It was alleged that he would hold the
hands of the students in the computer lab while using mouse in the
lab and do other inappropriate actions. The female students made
complaints to the Principal of the school, who directed the Head of
the Department to inspect the computer lab where several women’s
magazines and CDs containing questionable content were recovered.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SATISH KUMAR YADAV
Date: 2025.04.28
17:34:12 IST
Reason:
A show-cause notice was issued to respondent No.1, who is stated to
have apologized and promised to improve his conduct in future.
3. Respondent No.1, however, allegedly did not mend his ways
2
and continued to misbehave with the female students to the extent
that he sent vulgar and obscene images on the whatsApp group,
thinking that these numbers belong to the students whereas the
students had actually given the numbers of their parents. Again
complaints were made; the police was called and respondent No.1 was
arrested. It seems that respondent No.1 exerted some influence, as
the statements of all the victim students were not recorded, except
that of a 19 year’s old student. The Parents Teachers Association
then filed a Writ Petition before the High Court and it was only
upon judicial intervention that an FIR was finally registered
against respondent No.1. Shockingly, respondent No.1 claimed to
have entered into a settlement with the 19 year’s old student, and
based upon that, he sought quashing of the FIR before the High
Court. Meanwhile, the statements of some of the victim students
were recorded and based thereupon, five separate FIRs, i.e., FIR
Crime Nos. 291, 292, 293, 294 and 295 of 2017, were registered
against respondent No.1 on the same day, i.e., 04.04.2017 at Tirur
Police Station under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act. As stated
earlier, FIR Crime No.294/2017 was `settled’ by respondent No.1
with the victim, who was stated to be 19 years’ old student.
Respondent No.1, thereafter, approached the High Court seeking
quashing of the remaining FIRs and vide the impugned judgment, the
High Court has, after holding a mini trial and after taking note of
the contents of the statements alleged to have been made by the
victims at the preliminary stage, come to a conclusion that “it is
not possible to infer or impute that the said act has been done by
the petitioner with any sexual intent.”
3
4. All that we wish to observe at this stage is that the
High Court ought not to have ignored the fact that respondent No.1
was a teacher and the victims were his students. The preliminary
statements recorded before the Police Authorities reveal that prima
facie ingredients of offences under the POCSO Act, for the purpose
of subjecting respondent No.1 to a trial, are made out. We are fail
to understand as to how the High Court construed that Section 7 of
the POCSO Act will not be attracted unless there is an act
involving physical contact with sexual intent. Section 7 of the
POCSO Act defines ‘sexual assailt’ to include situations where a
person `with sexual intent touches the vagina, penis, anus or
breast of the child or makes the child touch the vagina, penis,
anus or breast of such person or any other person, or does any
other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact
without penetration’. The allegations that respondent No.1 would
hold the hands of female students in the computer lab while using
the mouse clearly falls within the ambit of `any other act with
sexual intent which involves physical contact’. In the context of a
teacher-student relationship, where the teacher is in a position of
authority and trust, such physical contact, when accompanied by
other inappropriate behavior including asking invasive questions
about sanitary napkins and sending vulgar images, provides
sufficient basis to infer sexual intent for the purpose of
proceeding with trial. The issue has been apparently pre-judged by
the High Court without even permitting the victims to enter witness
box and depose about various instances, which are briefly noted in
their preliminary statements.
4
5. We refrain from making further observations at this stage
as they may prejudice respondent No.1 or anyone else. Regardless
thereto, we have no reason to doubt that this was a fit case where
respondent No.1 ought to have been subjected to trial by ensuring
that the identity of the victims was not revealed, they are treated
as protected witnesses and their statements to be recorded at the
earliest. This is extremely important keeping in view the fact
that respondent No.1 has successfully prevailed upon one of the
victims, who allegedly “settled the dispute” and paved the way for
respondent No.1 to get one of the cases quashed.
6. It is pertinent to note that well before the impugned
judgment of the High Court, the investigation was complete and the
chargesheet had been filed and even the statements of some of the
victims, under Section 164 Cr.P.C., had already been recorded.
Unfortunately, all these aspects were not highlighted before the
High Court.
7. For the reasons aforestated, and without going into
further details, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set
aside, and the Trial Court before whom the chargesheets have been
filed, is directed to proceed with the trial. The matter regarding
framing of charges shall be concluded within two weeks. The Trial
Court is further directed to take up the matter at least twice in a
month and first of all record the statements of all the alleged
victims.
8. The prosecution will ensure that the victims are treated
as protected witnesses. Respondent No.1 shall not be permitted, in
any manner, to contact the victims and/or influence them directly
5
or indirectly.
9. The Management of the M.M.M. Higher Secondary School,
Koottayi is directed to keep respondent No.1 under suspension till
the conclusion of trial. The Management, however, shall be at
liberty to hold domestic enquiry against respondent No.1 in
accordance with the prescribed rules independent of the criminal
prosecution restored by us. Ordered accordingly.
10. The appeals stand allowed in the above terms.
11. As a result, the pending interlocutory application also
stands disposed of.
......................……...J.
(SURYA KANT)
..............……......……...J.
(NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 23, 2025.