POCSO Act | Repeatedly Following, Watching Or Contacting Child With Sexual Intent Amounts To Sexual Harassment : Jharkhand High Court

Justice Subhash Chand observed, “In the FIR itself, it has been stated that the minor victim girl of the informant was sexually harassed by the teacher of the school he used to tease her. He was also having evil eye so the complaint was made against him to the Principal of the school and he was removed from the post of teacher from that school. Thereafter, he had threatened to see them.”

“It has also been stated by these witnesses that even after removal from the post of teacher from that school he used to make effort to follow the victim daughter of the informant and also had been making effort to meet her and to talk her. As such, the act of the present petitioner comes within periphery of section 11(4) of the POCSO Act, 2012 which amounts sexual harassment as explained in section 2(J) of the POCSO Act, 2012 and the same is punishable under section 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012,” Justice Chand added.

The ruling came in a criminal revision petition directed on behalf of petitioner against the order passed by a Special POCSO Court rejecting the application for discharge of the petitioner-accused.

As per the factual matrix of the case, the informant, i.e., the father of the victim girl, had given a written statement to the police, alleging that his 15-year-old minor daughter was missing from his house, as she was suddenly not found on her bed at night.

She had been studying in Class X, and one and a half years ago, the teacher of the school (petitioner/convict herein) had cast an evil eye upon her. A complaint regarding the same had been made to the Manager of the school, leading to the removal of the convict teacher from the school by the management. However, even after that, he continued to make efforts to meet the victim.

With the utter belief that the convict had kidnapped the victim with the intent of having an illicit relationship with her, a report was lodged. Consequently, a case was registered under Sections 363 and 366A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Despite the Investigating Officer filing a final report citing a lack of evidence against the convict, the Trial Court had taken cognisance, and later rejected his application for discharge. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner approached the High Court.

The High Court observed that it is a settled law that while framing the charge the trial court has to take into consideration the allegations made in the FIR and the evidence collected by the IO during investigation if from them, there are sufficient ground to proceed with the trial against the accused the court should decline the discharge application of the accused.

While expounding on Section 11 of the POCSO Act 2012, the High Court further observed that a person is said to commit the sexual harassment upon a child when such person with sexual intent repeatedly or consistently follows or watches or contacts a child either directly or through electronic, digital or any other means will amount sexual assault in view of section 11(4) of the POCSO Act.

“Herein from the allegations made in the FIR and the statement of the witnesses under section 161 of Cr.PC as narrated hereinabove, there is ample evidence against the petitioner in regard to the sexual harassment caused to the victim who is deceased girl of the informant”, the Court concluded while dismissing the criminal revision petition and upheld the impugned order.

Appearance:

For the Petitioner : Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari, APP

For the OP No.2 : Mr. Shekhar Pd. Gupta, Advocate

Case Title: Rahul Yadav @ Hari Kumar Yadav, vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr

LL Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Jha) 1

Case No. Cr. Revision No.663 of 2022