Schools Must Encourage Children To Speak Up Against Discomfort Or Fear: Delhi High Court Upholds Teacher's POCSO Conviction
The Delhi High Court has emphasised that schools must encourage children to speak up against any conduct which makes them feel discomfort or fear and that they must he aware of their rights.“The Court is of the view that educational institutions must, instead, ensure that children are made aware of their rights and are encouraged to speak about any conduct which causes them fear, discomfort...
The Delhi High Court has emphasised that schools must encourage children to speak up against any conduct which makes them feel discomfort or fear and that they must he aware of their rights.
“The Court is of the view that educational institutions must, instead, ensure that children are made aware of their rights and are encouraged to speak about any conduct which causes them fear, discomfort or insecurity,” Justice Madhu Jain said.
The Court observed that the school environment must inspire sufficient confidence in children, both girls and boys, to come forward and place their concerns before the persons entrusted with their care.
Justice Jain made the observations while dismissing an appeal filed by a school drawing teacher convicted for sexually assaulting a minor girl aged about 12 years.
The Court upheld the conviction of the teacher for the offences under Sections 354 and 354A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO). It also upheld the sentence of five years' rigorous imprisonment awarded by the trial court.
The prosecution alleged that the teacher had subjected the minor student to inappropriate physical conduct on different occasions within the school premises.
Dismissing his challenge, Justice Jain noted that the Trial Court did not proceed on the basis of the testimony of the prosecutrix in isolation or by mechanically invoking the statutory presumption under the POCSO Act.
Such an approach, the Court said, is consistent with the scheme of Section 29 of the POCSO Act, under which the prosecution is required to establish the foundational facts before the statutory presumption can operate.
The Court further noted that the prosecutrix consistently attributed specific acts of inappropriate physical contact to the teacher within the school premises and had deposed that he had called her on the pretext of giving her a pen, took her into a room, made her sit and thereafter touched her inappropriately.
It concluded that the defence was unable to elicit, in the course of her cross-examination, any contradiction going to the root of the prosecution case.
“On an overall appreciation of the evidence, this Court finds that the testimony of the prosecutrix is consistent on the material particulars and inspires confidence. Her version is not only supported by the circumstances in which she disclosed the incident to her family, but also finds corroboration from the testimony of her elder sister, PW-6, who deposed regarding the disclosure made by the prosecutrix and the subsequent complaint made to the Principal against the Appellant. PW-6 further deposed about the conduct of the Appellant towards the prosecutrix and the subsequent response of the co- accused,” the Court said.
It added that the discrepancies pointed out by the teacher relate to peripheral aspects and did not touch upon the core of the prosecution case. The judge also held that nothing substantial had emerged in the victim's cross- examination which would render her testimony unworthy of reliance.
Deprecating the conduct of the appellant teacher, the Court said that a child ordinarily reposes trust and confidence in a teacher, which is sacred to the teacher-student relationship and carries with it a corresponding duty to protect the child, rather than to abuse or breach the trust so reposed.
“The abuse of such position, particularly against a young girl of an age comparable to that of the teacher's own daughter, is a matter of grave concern and cannot be treated as a mere breach of discipline or propriety,” the Court said.
“The conduct attributed to the co-accused, who, despite being the Principal of the school, is stated to have told the child that such matters should not be disclosed to her parents, is equally disturbing. A child who complains of such conduct ought not to be made to feel that she has done something wrong by speaking about it,” it added.
Title: NETRAM KUMAR v. THE STATE OF NCT OF DELHI