The Madras High Court has affirmed the conviction and seven-year prison sentence of a school correspondent for wrongfully confining and sexually assaulting a 10-year-old student on campus premises.
Delivering the ruling on October 9, Justice G Arul Murugan dismissed an appeal filed by the convict and observed that administrative authorities in educational institutions are legally and ethically obligated to safeguard students under their care. The court noted that offenses committed by school officials compromise the secure learning environment children require, inflicting lasting trauma on victims and triggering acute anxiety among parents.
Rejection Of Leniency Plea
The convict sought a reduction in sentence on the grounds of his age, having been 61 years old at the time of the incident and 68 during the appeal proceedings. The High Court dismissed this argument, holding that his age provided no justification for leniency and noting that he had committed the crime despite his senior years and institutional authority.
In Tamil Nadu educational institutions, a school correspondent serves as the administrative head, manager, or authorized representative of the management.
Case Background And Trial Verdict
The case stems from an incident in 2019, when the victim was attending handwriting sessions at the school. The correspondent took the child into an adjacent room and assaulted her. The victim’s father subsequently filed a police complaint regarding the matter.
A trial court later convicted the correspondent under provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act as well as for wrongful confinement, handing down rigorous imprisonment terms of seven years and one year, respectively.
Credibility Of Witness And Medical Evidence
In sustaining the lower court’s judgment, the High Court held that the testimony of the survivor was clear, consistent, and dependable, affirming that a victim’s sole evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction when it inspires complete judicial confidence without requiring corroboration.
Justice Murugan also observed that defence counsel initially declined to cross-examine the victim and her father on the scheduled date, proceeding with the questioning only after a delay of nearly seven months. Both witnesses stood firm during the delayed examination, and no adverse admissions were elicited.
The bench concluded that minor variations in testimony did not weaken the prosecution’s case, while pointing out that medical testimony had confirmed physical injury marks were neither probable nor necessary given the specific nature of the assault.
