While slamming the High Court for denying justice to the victims of offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), the Supreme Court has restored the case against a teacher accused of holding the hands of the students in the computer lab and acting inappropriately.

The Apex Court was considering an appeal challenging the order quashing the criminal charges against the accused teacher.

The Division Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh held, “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.”

Senior Advocate P.V. Dinesh represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate Thomas P Joseph represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The victims were students in a school in Tirur, where the respondent-accused worked as 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 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. A show-cause notice was issued to the accused. He apologised but continued to misbehave with the female students to the extent that he sent vulgar and obscene images on the WhatsApp group.

However, he exerted some influence, as the statements of all the victim students were not recorded, except that of a 19-year-old student. The Parents Teachers Association then filed a Writ Petition, and it was only upon judicial intervention that an FIR was finally registered against the accused, but he claimed to have entered into a settlement with the 19-year-old student. Meanwhile, the statements of some of the victim students were recorded and based thereupon, five separate FIRs, were registered under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act. The Respondent accused approached the High Court seeking quashing of the remaining FIRs, and vide the impugned judgment, the High Court concluded that it was not possible to infer or impute that the said act had been done by the petitioner with any sexual intent.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, said, “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…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.”

The Bench was of the view that this was a fit case where the respondent accused ought to have been subjected to trial by ensuring that the identity of the victims was not revealed. The Bench mentioned that the victims are to be treated as protected witnesses, and their statements are 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”, it further stated while setting aside the judgment of the High Court.

“...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 victim”, it ordered while asking the School Management to keep the accused respondent under suspension till the conclusion of the trial.

Cause Title: X Etc. v. Rajesh Kumar & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 579)

Appearance:

Appellant: Senior Advocate P.V. Dinesh, Advocates Junais P., Prasanth K., Anna Oommen, AOR M/S. Lead Counsel

Respondent: Senior Advocate Thomas P Joseph, AOR Bijo Mathew Joy, Advocate Gifty Marium Joseph, AOR Harshad V. Hameed, Advocates Dileep Poolakkot, Ashly Harshad

Click here to read/download Judgment


Justice Surya KantJustice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.