The High Court of Chhattisgarh on August 19, 2025, dismissed a criminal appeal filed by a teacher, upholding his conviction under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha affirmed the trial court’s decision, holding that the consistent and credible testimonies of the minor victims were sufficient to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt and qualified as “sterling witnesses.”
The appeal challenged the judgment dated March 2, 2022, by the Special Judge (F.T.S.C.) POCSO Act, Mungeli, which had convicted teacher Kirti Kumar Sharma for offences under Section 12 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to two years, one month, and six days of imprisonment along with a fine.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a complaint made on March 28, 2019. Ms. Pratima Mandloi, the Block Education Officer, was directed by the District Education Officer to conduct an inquiry into allegations of misbehavior against Kirti Kumar Sharma, a teacher at L.B. Government Middle School, Barela.
The inquiry, conducted in the presence of teachers and students, revealed that Sharma, though appointed to teach Mathematics and English, would unauthorizedly enter Class 7 to teach Science. During these classes, he was alleged to have inappropriately touched female students on their spines and chests. The report also noted that he consumed gutkha and Gudakhu (chewing tobacco) in front of students and used abusive language towards girls when they went to the washroom.
Following the inquiry, a report was forwarded to the District Education Officer, and an FIR was lodged at Police Station Jarhagaon. The police registered a case under Sections 294, 354, and 354(A) of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 9 and 10 of the POCSO Act, and provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed, and the trial court framed charges against the appellant. The appellant denied the charges and claimed trial.
Arguments of the Parties
Mr. Malay Shrivastava, counsel for the appellant, argued that the trial court’s judgment was “arbitrary, illegal, perverse, contrary to law,” and based on “surmises and conjectures.” He contended that the court failed to properly appreciate the evidence, particularly the statements of witnesses who, he claimed, narrated that no incident had occurred. The core of his argument was that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
Conversely, Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, representing the State, opposed the appeal, submitting that the prosecution had successfully proven its case. He argued that the two victim girls (PW-3 and PW-9) “have categorically stated that the accused / appellant had deliberately touched the body and chest of the girls and their friends while studying in the school.” He further asserted that their statements were duly supported by other prosecution witnesses and the trial court had rightly convicted the appellant based on the available material.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, in his judgment, framed the central issue for consideration as “whether the testimony of the victims deserve acceptance and whether the prosecution has established the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.”
The Court noted the testimony of the two victims, who were approximately 12 years old at the time of the incidents. Victim PW-3 stated that the accused “stroked her back” in class. Victim PW-9 testified that the accused sat beside her during lunch break and “started touching her body.” When she expressed her discomfort, the appellant allegedly replied that “he liked it.” Both victims reported the incidents to teachers and their parents.
Their testimonies were corroborated by another student, Deepika Miri (PW-1), who stated that the appellant “used to touch the bodies and chests of the girls studying in the school, including her friends.” Teacher Upasana Gopal (PW-10) also testified that students had reported the appellant’s inappropriate touching. The Block Education Officer, Dr. Pratibha Mandloi (PW-15), confirmed the findings of her investigation before the court.
The High Court placed significant reliance on the credibility of the victims’ statements. The judgment observed, “Considering the statements of the two victims, i.e., PW-3 and PW-9, who have categorically deposed before the trial Court that they were sexually assaulted by the appellant, who was their teacher… the evidence of PW-3 and PW-9 falls within the category of sterling witnesses. There is no cogent reason to discard their testimonies.”
The Court cited several Supreme Court judgments to support its reasoning. It referred to Rai Sandeep @ Deenu v. State of NCT of Delhi on the definition of a ‘sterling witness’ whose testimony is unassailable and consistent. The judgment also invoked Nawabuddin v. State of Uttarakhand, which held that offences under the POCSO Act must be viewed seriously and dealt with stringently, stating, “exploitation of children in such a manner is a crime against humanity and the society.” Further, citing State of H.P. v. Shree Kant Shekar, the Court reiterated the legal principle that the testimony of a rape prosecutrix does not require corroboration if found credible by the court, as she “stands on a higher pedestal than an injured witness.”
Decision of the Court
Based on the evidence and established legal principles, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had proven its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
In its final order, the Court stated, “I am of the considered opinion that the learned Special Judge has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 12 (two counts) of the POCSO Act. I find no illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the trial Court.”
The Court upheld the conviction and sentence awarded by the Special Judge and dismissed the criminal appeal for lack of merit. It was noted that the appellant had already served the jail sentence and deposited the fine amount.
