Teacher hitting girl students on back, waist without sexual intent not offence under POCSO Act: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has recently quashed a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) against a school teacher accused of hitting minor girl students on their back and waist during class [Bhaskar Paul v. State of West Bengal].

In an order passed on September 8, a bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S Chandurkar held that the students’ statements did not indicate that the teacher had touched them with sexual intent, which is necessary to constitute sexual assault under the POCSO Act.

The Court acknowledged that the teacher’s use of corporal punishment was inappropriate and that he should have been more sensitive while dealing with girl students.

However, it said that such conduct alone could not justify prosecuting him for aggravated sexual assault under the POCSO Act.

The Bench also highlighted the serious and irreversible damage that a POCSO prosecution could cause to a teacher’s life and career even if he were to be eventually acquitted.

“For a teacher serving in a girls’ school or a school which is co-educational, such an allegation or trial virtually amounts to condemning him, not only for his entire service career as a teacher but for his life as well. He has a family also. Therefore, to accuse a teacher of committing sexual assault on girl students, would be like a death knell for such a teacher. Ultimate acquittal would not redeem the appellant as it would be wholly inadequate to undo all the pervasive damage already suffered by him due to the severity of the criminal trial under the POCSO Act. While the appellant certainly needs to sensitize himself while dealing with students of tender age, particularly girl students, it cannot be a ground for prosecuting him under the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act,” the Court said.

The case arose from complaints concerning a geography teacher, one Bhaskar Paul, and his conduct towards girl students at the school where he taught.

A counselling-cum-enquiry conducted by the District Child Protection Unit, Alipurduar recorded allegations that the teacher had rubbed students’ backs, pinched them on the waist and made them uncomfortable. The report also referred to allegations that he had touched one student’s neck and looked at three students inappropriately.

Based on this report, the officer-in-charge of Samuktala Police Station registered a first information report (FIR) against Paul under Section 10 of the POCSO Act. The case was subsequently taken up by the Special Court at Alipurduar.

In their statements before a magistrate, the two students said that Paul would hit them when they failed to learn their lessons. One student said that he hit them on the back and waist, while the other said that he had held her hand.

Paul approached the Calcutta High Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings. The High Court rejected his plea on April 27, following which he moved the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court explained that under Section 7 of the POCSO Act, physical contact with a child amounts to sexual assault only when it involves sexual intent.

The Court added that if such an offence is committed by a teacher, it is treated as aggravated sexual assault under Section 9(f) and is punishable under Section 10.

After examining the statements made by the students, the Court found that they disclosed corporal punishment but not sexual assault.

The Court also raised doubts about the delay in registering the FIR. It noted that the headmaster and women teachers who initiated the process had not witnessed the alleged incidents and that their statements were based on what they had been told.

The Court held that allowing the prosecution to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law and cause extreme prejudice to Paul.

Accordingly, it set aside the Calcutta High Court order and quashed the entire proceedings pending against Paul before the special court at Alipurduar.

Advocates Arjun Chowdhary, Uday Sanakr Sarkar, Junaid Ali Khan, Ahmed Nabeel Rizvi, Suneet Singh, Abdul Mannan, Yasser Wali, and Irshad Ahmad appeared for the petitioners.

Advocate Nishant Awana appeared for the respondent.

[Read Order]