RAJVEER
Allegation Of Sexual Harassment Committed Within Closed Confines Requires Closer Scrutiny If Victim's Statement Is Doubtful
RAJVEER SINGH 13 Aug 2024

The Supreme Court on Monday (March 11) observed that the offence of sexual harassment committed within the confines of a room or a house (under the POCSO Act) requires closer scrutiny by the courts while deciding the conviction of the accused solely based on the victim's statements.

Reversing the concurrent findings of the trial court and the Madras High Court, the Supreme Court acquitted a teacher who was accused of sexually harassing his 13-year-old girl student.

“...an alleged offence of sexual harassment in a public place, as opposed to one committed within the confines of a room or a house, or even in a public place but away from the view of the public, stands on somewhat different premise. If any doubt arises in the Court's mind regarding the veracity of the victim's version, the Court may, at its discretion, seek corroboration from other witnesses who directly observed the incident or from other attending circumstances to unearth the truth.”, the Bench Comprising Justices Dipankar Datta, KV Viswanathan and Sandeep Mehta said.
The aforesaid observation in the Judgment authored by Justice Dipankar Datta was passed while setting aside the conviction of the School Teacher for the alleged act of sexual harassment with her student under the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act ("POCSO Act"), after finding glaring inconsistencies in the depositions made by the prosecution witnesses, especially the victim herself.

It was the case of the prosecution that the accused/teacher in between the classes gave chocolates and flowers to the victim/student. When the victim resisted, the teacher forcefully gave the flowers by twisting her hands. Moreover, the prosecution also alleged that the accused/teacher showed his sexual intent towards the victim by asking her friend over call to send the victim to the Physical Education Training room.

Based on the incident, a case was registered against the accused/teacher under Section 12 of the POCSO Act (Punishment for Sexual Harassment).

The trial court convicted the accused/teacher and sentenced him to suffer three years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 30,000/-, and the High Court upheld the same. Following this, the accused/teacher preferred the plea before the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court, it was contended by the appellant/teacher that both the Trial Court and High Court committed error in finding the appellant guilty of sexually harassing the victim because apart from the victim herself, no testimony of other students was placed by the prosecution to prove that the accused had given flowers to the victim forcefully in between the class.

Further, the accused called for discarding the prosecution case for not examining the victim's friend to whom the accused allegedly called to ask the victim to come to the PET Room. According to the accused, the non-examination of the victim's friend's phone shall turn fatal to the prosecution's case.

Finding force in the submissions made by the accused/teacher, the Supreme Court noted that the prosecution's case has been marked by lacklustre efforts, revealing a poorly executed endeavour that gives rise to substantial doubts regarding the integrity of the case.

“The material contradictions apparent in the depositions of prosecution witnesses, including the victim, significantly undermine the credibility of the prosecution version. These inconsistencies in the prosecution's narrative, render it considerably doubtful”, the court observed.

Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Based On Unreliable Sole Testimony of Victim

The Supreme Court referred to Ganesan v. State, where it held that the sole testimony of the victim if found reliable and trustworthy, requires no corroboration and may be sufficient to invite conviction of the accused.

However, while referring to its precedents, the Supreme Court stated if the testimony of the victim suffers from contradictions or can't be relied upon, then the courts should strive to find out the true genesis of the incident.

“What flows from the aforesaid decisions is that in cases where witnesses are neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable, the Court should strive to find out the true genesis of the incident. While a victim's testimony is usually enough for sexual offence cases, an unreliable or insufficient account from the prosecutrix, marked by identified flaws and gaps, could make it difficult for a conviction to be recorded.”, the court observed.

“When considering the evidence of a victim subjected to a sexual offence, the Court does not necessarily demand an almost accurate account of the incident. If the Court deems such evidence credible and free from doubt, there is hardly any insistence on corroboration of that version.”, the court added.

However, the Supreme Court didn't rely on the sole testimony of the victim after finding apparent contradictions in the victim's statements specifically the statement recorded in FIR and Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements.

“While we might have chosen to overlook other contradictions and solely relied on the victim's account, considering her as a 'sterling witness', her version appears muddled and prevaricated, much less coherent. It is precisely these inconsistencies and contradictions, which are material, that compel us to reject the case set up by the prosecution before the Special Court with which the High Court concurred adopting a flawed approach.”, the court observed.

Here, the Court noted that only one student was examined as a witness to prove that the accused had given flowers and chocolates to the victim. But she turned hostile during the trial. Also, nowhere in the deposition has the victim said that she was pinched by the accused. However,t he High Court held that the accused perpetrated physical attack on the victim by pinching her. The omissions of the prosecution to examine the headmaster of the school and the brother of the victim, who was studying in the same school, were also cited by the Court as glaring mistakes.

"While the actions attributed to A-1, as sought to be demonstrated by the prosecution, may fall within the purview of 'sexual harassment' under section 11 of the POCSO Act, the evidence in this case has been marred by inadequacies from the outset, evident in contradictions within statements and testimonies. The evidence led leaves reasonable suspicion as to whether A-1 was actually involved in any criminal act," the Court stated.

Moreover, the following observation of the court is important to be mentioned here:

"At the same time, it is axiomatic that reputation is earned by a teacher upon rendering service over the years and an accusation like the present would remain as an indelible mark marring his entire future life. Care has, therefore, to be taken so that his right to live a life of dignity and personal liberty are not put to jeopardy on the basis of half-baked evidence."

Based on the abovementioned observations, the Supreme Court reversed the accused/teacher's conviction to acquittal by giving the benefit of doubt due to missing links in the present case to convict the accused.

Counsel For Petitioner(s) Ms. E. R. Sumathy, AOR

Counsels For Respondent(s) Mr. V. Krishnamurthy, Sr. A.A.G. Mr. D. Kumanan, AOR Mr. Sheikh F. Kalia, Adv. Mrs. Deepa. S, Adv. Mr. Veshal Tyagi, Adv.

Case Title: NIRMAL PREMKUMAR & ANR. VERSUS STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Did you find this write up useful? YES 0 NO 0
SAARTH A SoOLEGAL Technologies Initiative
Active Members view all
New Members view all
Legal News Headlines
×

C2RM… To Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work

0

DAYS

0

HOURS

0

MINUTES

0

SECONDS

Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.
×

SAARTH… To Know More

Launching Soon : SAARTH, your complete client, case, practise & document management SAAS application with direct client chat feature.

If you want to know more give us a Call at :+91 98109 29455 or Mail info@soolegal.com