Madras High Court upholds school correspondent’s conviction for sexually assaulting and confining a 10-year-old student

The appellant, correspondent of Shantiniketan Matriculation School, was accused of taking a ten-year-old girl (P.W.2) from her handwriting class to a nearby room, locking the door, touching and pressing her breast, kissing her cheek, and restraining her when she tried to leave.

The child reported the incident to her father shortly afterwards; a complaint was lodged and an FIR registered that day.

The Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Section 342 IPC and Section 9(m) read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act, sentencing him to concurrent terms of one year’s and seven years’ rigorous imprisonment, respectively.

He appealed against the conviction and sentence.

1. Whether the victim’s evidence, considered with the surrounding evidence, proved aggravated sexual assault under Section 9(m) read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act

2. Whether the evidence established wrongful confinement under Section 342 IPC

3. Whether the alleged delay in registering and forwarding the FIR, discrepancies in the evidence, and the asserted availability of CCTV footage undermined the prosecution case

4. Whether the appellant’s age warranted interference with the sentence

Under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act, a person below eighteen years is a child; sexual assault against a child below twelve years falls within aggravated sexual assault under Section 9(m), punishable under Section 10.

For age determination, the Court applied the procedure in Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, relying on *Yuvaprakash v. State of T.N.*, (2024) 17 SCC 684, and treated the school certificate as the primary evidence.

The Court also applied the Section 29 POCSO presumption after finding foundational facts established.

A credible and trustworthy victim’s testimony can alone sustain conviction; corroboration is not an invariable legal requirement, as explained in *Ganesan v. State*, (2020) 10 SCC 573.

Wrongful confinement under Section 342 IPC was established on the evidence that the appellant locked the room and restrained the child’s escape.

The victim’s school certificate and the evidence of the school principal established that she was ten years old on the date of occurrence, bringing the assault within Section 9(m).

The Court found her testimony consistent with her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement and the contemporaneous complaint, and supported by evidence that she came crying and promptly disclosed the incident to her father and others.

The absence of medical injuries did not discredit her account, given the nature of the acts alleged.

The Court rejected the delay and CCTV arguments, noting the same-day FIR and the appellant’s failure to produce material establishing that relevant CCTV footage existed.

It also found that the victim had been confined when the appellant locked the door and restrained her as she attempted to escape.

The appellant’s age was not accepted as a mitigating ground to alter the sentence.

Finding no illegality or perversity in the trial court’s decision, it confirmed the convictions and sentences, dismissed the appeal, and directed the trial court to secure the appellant to serve any remaining sentence.