Kerala High Court upholds conviction of madrasa teacher for sexually assaulting 9-year-old boy

The Kerala High Court recently upheld the conviction and 20-year prison sentence imposed on a madrasa teacher for sexually assaulting a 9-year-old student. [Rasheed v. State of Kerala]

Justice A Badharudeen dismissed the appeal filed by accused, Rasheed, who had challenged a 2023 judgement of the Special POCSO Court Kunnamkulam, which had found him guilty of offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, Section 377 (unnatural offences) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act).

The Court held that the child's testimony was trustworthy and supported by the evidence placed on record.

The appeal arose from a case involving the sexual assault of a 9-year-old student of Noorul Hidaya Madrassa in Thrissur district, where the accused was working as a teacher.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, when classes were being conducted online, the child had approached the teacher to clear doubts relating to an examination. It was during this visit that the accused teacher sexually assaulted the child. The child later disclosed the incident to his mother, leading to the registration of a criminal case and the eventual prosecution of the accused teacher.

A trial court convicted the accused and imposed, among other punishments, a sentence of 20 years of rigorous imprisonment for the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault under the POCSO Act.

Before the High Court, the accused challenged the trial court's decision, arguing that the case against him was fabricated and at the instance of members belonging to rival sects of the Muslim community. He also contended that the trial court had made a mistake in relying on the sole testimony of the child victim.

However, the Court, after examining the evidence, found no merit in the accused's contentions. It rejected his theory of fabrication while noting that the accused had failed to produce any material to prove that he was falsely implicated.

It also noted that the testimony of the child remained consistent throughout the proceedings and that his version was corroborated by surrounding circumstances and the evidence of other witnesses.

"Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that PW1 is not a sterling witness is found to be unacceptable and is negatived. Similarly, sectarianism in the Muslim community led to registration of this crime also could not be found even remotely, as no convincing evidence forthcoming in this regard," the Court added.

The appellant was represented by Advocates CP Udayabhanu, Navaneeth N Nath, Rassal Janardhanan A, Abhishek M Kunnathu, Boban Palat, PU Pratheesh Kumar, PR Ajay, KU Swapnil, Pranav Ushakar and Swetha Bijumon.

Senior public prosecutor Vipin Narayan A appeared for the State.

[Read Judgment]