1. Sexual assault of a child in school — Charge sheet filed under Section 21, POCSO Act and Section 75, Juvenile Justice Act — Challenge to summons issued to school chairman. (Para 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 829
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY S.OKA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
S.C. Narang – Appellant
Versus
State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 2125 of 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Criminal) No. 824 of 2023)
Decided On : 22-04-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. Rajappa, AOR Mr. R. Gowrishankar, Adv. Ms. G. Dhivyasri, Adv. Mr. Toshiv Goyal, Adv. Mr. Ritwik Mohapatra, Adv. Mr. Varun Tyagi, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mrs. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G. Mrs. Ruchi Kohli, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mrs. Arunima Dwivedi, Adv. Ms. Shagun Thakur, Adv. Ms. Satvika Thakur, Adv. Mr. Anshul Narayan, Adv. Mr. Prem Prakash, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv. Mr. S. Rajappa, AOR Mr. R. Gowrishankar, Adv. Ms. G. Dhivyasri, Adv. Mr. Toshiv Goyal, Adv. Mr. Ritwik Mohapatra, Adv. Mr. Varun Tyagi, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mrs. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G. Mrs. Ruchi Kohli, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mrs. Arunima Dwivedi, Adv. Ms. Shagun Thakur, Adv. Ms. Satvika Thakur, Adv. Mr. Anshul Narayan, Adv. Mr. Prem Prakash, AOR
A person must have actual charge or control over a child to be held liable under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act. Mere managerial responsibility does not confer such control.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 21 - Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Section 75 - The appeal concerns the application of criminal liability on the appellant, Chairman of the Managing Committee of a school, in connection with the alleged sexual assault of a child by a minor. The appellant's defense argued that the statutory requirements of actual charge or control over the victim were not met as per Section 75 of the JJ Act; the court agreed with this interpretation. (Paras 7-9)
(B) Criminal Responsibility - The court ruled that mere managerial role does not translate to liability for acts committed within the school without demonstrable charge over the victim. (Paras 8-9)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the chairman of a school's managing committee possesses actual charge or control over students to attract liability under Section 75, Juvenile Justice Act. (Para 5 , 6 )
3. Management control over an institution does not equate to actual charge or control over every individual child studying in that school. (Para 8 )
4. Liability under Section 75, Juvenile Justice Act requires the accused to have actual charge of or control over the victim child. (Para 8 )
5. Appeal allowed — Orders of the Special Court and High Court set aside. (Para 9 , 11 )
6. What is the essential requirement for punishment for cruelty to a child under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act?
A person can be punished for cruelty to a child under Section 75 only if it is shown that they had either the actual charge of the child or control over the child. (Para 7 , 8 )
7. Does the chairman of a school's managing committee have actual charge or control over every student under Section 75 of the JJ Act?
No. While a chairman may have control over the management of the institution that runs the school, this does not equate to having actual charge or control over every child studying in the school. (Para 8 )
8. Does moral responsibility for child safety establish legal liability under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act?
No. Section 75 of the JJ Act cannot be applied based on moral responsibility; it requires a specific showing of actual charge or control over the victim child. (Para 8 )
JUDGMENT
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises out of a very unfortunate incident. A four year old child was studying in the nursery class at Maxfort School, Dwarka, New Delhi. The alleged incident occurred on 17th November 2017. The girl child complained of pain in her private parts, and upon enquiry from the child, it was learnt that one of her classmates had allegedly sexually assaulted her. Therefore, a First Information Report was registered under Section 376 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1860 and Section 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO Act'). The police, after investigation, filed a charge sheet. Two protest petitions were filed by the complainant (second respondent, mother of the victim child).
3. We may note here that since the prime accused was less than 7 years of age, the police filed a charge-sheet only under Section 21 of the POCSO Act read with Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short "the JJ Act"). The charge sheet was filed against four persons: the Principal of the School, two teachers, and the Vice- Chairman/officiating Chairman of the Managing Committee, which runs the school. The present appellant is the Chairman of the Managing Committee. On the basis of the second protest petition, the learned Special Judge issued a summons to the appellant. The present appellant challenged the order by filing a Revision Application, which was dismissed by the High Court by the impugned order.
4. The Special Court firstly observed that the appellant being the Chairman was responsible for implementation of the Guidelines issued by the Directorate of Education on 15th September, 2017 which made it mandatory to install sufficient number of CCTV cameras in the school premises so as to mandatorily cover all class rooms, labs, corridor, parking, library, areas outside wash rooms etc. The Special Court found fault with the appellant on the ground that the CCTV cameras were not installed in accordance with the Guidelines, and therefore, negligence was attributed to the appellant.
5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has invited our attention to Section 75 of the JJ Act. He submitted that even taking the case of the prosecution as correct, it cannot be said that the appellant had the actual charge or control over the victim child. He submitted that the incident occurred within a few days of the Guidelines dated 15th September, 2017. Therefore, when the incident occurred, the CCTV cameras were not installed, which was done subsequently. He pointed out that the Principal of the school, two teachers and the Vice-Chairman have already been shown as accused for the offence punishable under Section 75 of the JJ Act.
6. We also heard the learned Additional Solicitor General, who appeared for the respondent-State. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submitted that, as the Chairman of the institution running the school, the appellant is fully responsible for taking care of the children enrolled in the school. As the Chairman, the appellant had full control over the school, and that is how Section 75 of the JJ Act applies. He submitted that the appellant is morally responsible for ensuring that such an incident does not happen in the school.
7. Section 75 of the JJ Act reads thus:
“Section 75: Punishment for cruelty to Child:- Whoever, having the actual charge of, or control over, a child, assaults, abandons, abuses, exposes or willfully neglects the child or causes or procures the child to be assaulted, abandoned abused, exposed or neglected in a manner likely to cause such child unnecessary mental or physical suffering, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine of one lakh rupees or with both:
Provided that in case it is found that such abandonment of the child by the biological parents is due to circumstances beyond their control, it shall b
