Teacher’s conviction under POCSO Act upheld by HP High Court

Vijay Arora

Advertisement

Legal Correspondent

Shimla, May 23

The HP High Court has upheld 10 years of imprisonment awarded to a teacher under the provision of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

2016 case

• The accused took the victim to the school office on September 28, 2016, and tried to commit forcible sexual intercourse with her. The incident was seen by another student, who disclosed it to other students, and later to the victim’s parents

While upholding the judgment of the trial court, a Division Bench comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Rakesh Kainthla observed that, “The accused was a teacher and in a fiduciary relationship with the victim. He was supposed to protect her, but has taken advantage of his position to sexually abuse the victim. The trial court had rightly convicted the accused of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 354A, 506 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act for committing the acts against the victim.”

The court passed this judgment on an appeal filed by the accused contending therein that he has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in this case.

As per the prosecution, the accused took the victim to the school office on September 28, 2016, and tried to commit forcible sexual intercourse with her. The incident was seen by another student, who disclosed it to other students, and later to the victim’s parents. The victim’s parents enquired about the matter from her and she disclosed the entire incident to them. The victim was a student of Class VIII, where the accused was a teacher.

After the completion of the trial, Solan Additional District and Sessions Judge on September 25, 2020, convicted the accused and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for ten years and imposed a fine of Rs 25,000 under the provisions of the POCSO Act.

Aggrieved from sentenced awarded to him, the accused filed an appeal before the High Court. While dismissing the appeal, the court observed that, “The accused was an authority figure in a position to terrorise the victim. There are no reasons to interfere with the judgment passed by the trial court. Hence, the present appeal fails and the same is dismissed.”