Gurugram: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has suspended the five-year sentence of a teacher convicted of molesting a Class 7 student, and ordered his release on bail pending appeal, holding that the girl’s behaviour just a day after the alleged incident casts serious doubts on the veracity of her allegations. It also said the prosecution failed to produce any material or documentary evidence.
A day after the alleged molestation 2 November 2022, the 12-year-old girl had clicked some pictures in her school and uploaded them on her Instagram account with the caption “School Mein Maje (having fun in school)”.
“Such conduct… exhibits no sign of fear, trauma or emotional distress ordinarily expected from a child victim of such a grave offence,” Justice Namit Kumar observed in his 7 November order, suspending the remaining part of the sentence during the pendency of the appeal.
At the time of the order, the teacher had already undergone custody of one year, three months, and seven days, including the period as an undertrial. The court noted that he was not involved in any other case.
Hearing the teacher’s application under Section 430 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, the judge noted several inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case.
Equivalent to Section 389 of the CrPC, Section 430 of the BNSS allows an appellate court to suspend the sentence of a convicted person and grant them bail while their appeal is pending.
Also Read: Unwelcome talk with woman annoying but doesn’t amount to outraging her modesty—Punjab & Haryana HC
Case background
A special fast track court for POCSO cases had convicted the teacher in November 2024 under Section 354-A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 10 and 12 of POCSO Act, 2012.
The court had sentenced him to three years’ rigorous imprisonment and Rs 10,000 fine under section 354-A IPC; five years rigorous imprisonment and Rs 30,000 fine under section 10 of the POCSO Act, and three years’ rigorous imprisonment and Rs 10,000 fine under section 12 of POCSO Act, with all sentences to run concurrently.
The court also held that the convict will have to undergo a further imprisonment of three months, six months and three months respectively in case of default in paying the fine.
The 12-year-old schoolgirl had levelled allegations of inappropriate touch and obscene talks against the teacher, leading to the lodging of an FIR against him in November 2022.
The victim alleged in her complaint to the police that the teacher had called her to meet him in the staff room, where he started obscene talk, and touched her inappropriately.
The teacher rejected the claims, saying it was a false and fabricated case filed out of personal grudge.
Senior Advocate S.S. Behl, appearing for the convicted teacher, contended that about a month before the alleged incident, the teacher reprimanded the student after allegedly finding her in a compromising position with a boy and for bringing a mobile phone in the school to make reels.
The defence maintained that on the date of the alleged incident, the teacher had merely called the girl to the staff room to question her about using mobile phone during school hours and instructed her to bring her parents and phone to the parents-teachers meeting the next day.
High Court’s observations
While keeping the sentence under suspension during the pendency of the teacher’s appeal, Justice Namit Kumar highlighted several aspects that raised doubts about the prosecution’s version.
The court mentioned that on 3 November 2022, just a day after the alleged incident, the girl attended the PTM with her parents, clicked photographs at the school, and posted them on social media with the caption “School Mein Maje“.
“Such behaviour cannot reasonably be anticipated from a minor, who was subjected to sexual molestation by her teacher at school merely a day prior,” the court observed.
It took note of depositions by two defence witnesses who were present in the staff room during the alleged incident. Both witnesses testified that the interaction was limited to the teacher questioning the girl about using the mobile phone and instructions to attend the PTM.
The judgment stated that “any child who would have experienced such an incident must have been mentally traumatised for a while,” but the girl’s conduct exhibited “no sign of fear, trauma and emotional distress that would ordinarily be expected from a victim of such a grave offence.”
The HC noted the prosecution failed to produce any material or documentary evidence apart from the statement of the victim.
The court also noted the victim changed clothes prior to the medical examination, potentially affecting the evidentiary value of medical findings. The court also took note of another teacher’s statement that no abnormal behaviour was noticed when the girl returned to the class after meeting the accused.
The witness further testified that during his class after the lunch break, the girl’s behaviour remained normal.
The court said the girl’s conduct and demeanour subsequent to the alleged incident “does not inspire confidence in the prosecution version”, and “strongly indicates that the incident, as narrated by the prosecutrix, did not take place in the manner alleged”.
The HC suspended the remaining sentence and ordered his release on bail subject to furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The court clarified that its observations were made without commenting on the merits of the case, which will be decided when the main appeal is heard.
(Edited by Ajeet Tiwari)
Also Read: Compromise can’t obliterate criminal liability in cheating case when public interest is involved—HC