The Supreme Court of India has set aside the Kerala High Court’s decision quashing multiple FIRs against a school teacher, Rajesh Kumar, under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The Court held that allegations of the teacher holding hands of female students in the computer lab prima facie constitute an ‘act with sexual intent’, warranting trial.
Background of the Case:
The appellants were female students of M.M.M. Higher Secondary School, Tirur, where respondent Rajesh Kumar served as a Computer Teacher. It was alleged that he behaved inappropriately with the female students, asked obscene questions such as the number of sanitary napkins used in a year, held students’ hands while using the mouse in the computer lab, and sent vulgar images to a WhatsApp group, mistakenly believing the phone numbers belonged to the students rather than their parents.
Following repeated complaints, the Principal directed an inspection of the computer lab, resulting in the recovery of several women’s magazines and CDs with questionable content. A show-cause notice was issued to Rajesh Kumar, who apologised and assured improvement. However, he allegedly continued his misconduct, leading to police involvement and his arrest.
Despite complaints, initially only the statement of a 19-year-old student was recorded. Subsequently, upon intervention by the Parent-Teacher Association through a writ petition before the High Court, FIRs were registered. Five separate FIRs (Crime Nos. 291, 292, 293, 294, and 295 of 2017) were filed against him under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act at Tirur Police Station on 4 April 2017.
One of the FIRs (Crime No. 294/2017) was reportedly “settled” by Rajesh Kumar with the 19-year-old student, and based on this, he sought quashing of all FIRs before the High Court.
Arguments Before the Court:
Rajesh Kumar contended before the High Court that the allegations did not reflect any sexual intent required under Section 7 of the POCSO Act. The High Court accepted his contention, holding after a preliminary assessment that “it is not possible to infer or impute that the said act has been done by the petitioner with any sexual intent.”
Supreme Court’s Observations:
The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Surya Kant and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, held that the High Court erred in prejudging the matter without allowing the victims to depose as witnesses.
The Court observed:
“The preliminary statements recorded before the Police Authorities reveal that prima facie ingredients of offences under the POCSO Act, for the purpose of subjecting respondent No.1 to a trial, are made out.”
Referring to Section 7 of the POCSO Act, the Court explained:
“Section 7 of the POCSO Act defines ‘sexual assault’ to include situations where a person ‘with sexual intent touches the vagina, penis, anus or breast of the child or makes the child touch the vagina, penis, anus or breast of such person or any other person, or does any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact without penetration.'”
The Court categorically stated:
“The allegations that respondent No.1 would hold the hands of female students in the computer lab while using the mouse clearly falls within the ambit of ‘any other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact.'”
Further, it emphasised the specific context of the teacher-student relationship:
“In the context of a teacher-student relationship, where the teacher is in a position of authority and trust, such physical contact, when accompanied by other inappropriate behavior including asking invasive questions about sanitary napkins and sending vulgar images, provides sufficient basis to infer sexual intent for the purpose of proceeding with trial.”
The Court also noted that the investigation was complete, the charge sheet had been filed, and statements of some victims under Section 164 CrPC had been recorded, but these facts were not properly brought to the attention of the High Court.
Decision:
Setting aside the High Court’s judgment, the Supreme Court directed the Trial Court to proceed with the trial. Specific directions issued were:
- The matter regarding framing of charges shall be concluded within two weeks.
- The Trial Court shall take up the matter at least twice a month and prioritise recording statements of all alleged victims.
- The prosecution must ensure that the victims are treated as protected witnesses.
- Rajesh Kumar shall not contact or influence the victims directly or indirectly.
- The Management of M.M.M. Higher Secondary School, Koottayi, is directed to keep Rajesh Kumar under suspension till the conclusion of the trial. However, the Management may independently initiate domestic enquiry proceedings.
The appeals were accordingly allowed, and pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.
Case Details:
- Case Title: X & Ors. vs Rajesh Kumar & Ors.
- Bench: Justice Surya Kant and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
