Kerala High Court Upholds Madrassa Teacher's POCSO Conviction For Sexually Assaulting Minor Boy
The Kerala High Court recently upheld the conviction and sentence imposed on a madrassa teacher, who was found guilty of sexually assaulting a minor student.
[2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 331]
Justice A. Badharudeen was considering an appeal preferred assailing the conviction for the offences under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 4(2) r/w. 3(d), 6(1) r/w. 5(f), 5(m), 8 r/w. 7, 10 r/w. 9(o) and 9 (m) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act [Punishment for cruelty to child].
The allegation was that the appellant had sexually assault his student, a 9-year-old boy, who had come to his residence to clear doubts about an online examination being conducted by the madrassa during the Covid period.
Before the High Court, the appellant contended that he was falsely arrayed in the case at the instance of persons belonging to another sect in the Muslim community as he was a Sunni. He also pointed out that there were contradictions in the statement given by the victim, who was a child witness.
The public prosecutor opposed the appeal and pointed out that there were no material contradictions in the evidence rendered by the victim (PW1). He also submitted that the prosecution version was proved by other witnesses, including the victim's mother to whom the child had disclosed the incident, leading to the registration of the crime.
After re-appreciating the evidence, the Court found that there was nothing to disbelieve the victim's statement regarding the sexual overtures committed by the appellant and that the same was supported by the evidence rendered by other witnesses.
It was further observed that the juvenility of the victim, who was aged 9 years 11 months and 12 days, was not disputed by the defence.
“the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that PW1 is not a sterling witness is found to be unacceptable and is negatived. Similarly, sectarianism in the Muslim community led to registration of this crime also could not be found even remotely, as no convincing evidence forthcoming in this regard,” the Court added.
With respect to the sentence imposed, the Court was not inclined to interfere since only the statutory minimum was granted:
“Coming to the sentence, since the minimum punishment for the offences punishable under Sections 5(f) and 5(m) as provided under Section 6(1) of the POCSO Act is imprisonment for a term not less than 20 years, which may extend upto imprisonment for life, no reduction in the sentence is possible, as the Special Court imposed only the minimum sentence. Therefore, the sentence also is confirmed.”
Thus, the Court dismissed the appeal.
Case No: Crl. A. No. 421 of 2023
Case Title: Rasheed v. State of Kerala
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 331
Counsel for the appellant: C.P. Udayabhanu, Navaneeth N. Nath, Rassal Janardhanan A., Abhishek M. Kunnathu, Boban Palat, P.U. Pratheesh Kumar, P.R. Ajay, K.U. Swapnil, Pranav Ushakar, Swetha Bijumon
Counsel for the respondent: Vipin Narayan A. - Sr. Public Prosecutor