IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes that attempts to commit sexual harassment and wrongful confinement can be prosecuted under the IPC, emphasizing the importance of context and the nature of the accused's actions in determining guilt.

JUDGMENT :

Mridul Kumar Kalita, J.

1. Heard Ms. Nancy Lotha, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. V. Suokhrie, learned Public Prosecutor, Nagaland.

2. This Criminal Appeal has been registered on filing of an appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the appellant Sri Founder Chung, against the judgment dated 16.08.2019 delivered by the Court of learned Special Judge, Phek, in G.R. Case No. 103/2014 (Pfutsero P. S. Case No. 29/2014) whereby the present appellant was convicted under Section 354 A (1) (i) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced, for the said offence, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months. He was also convicted under Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced, for the said offence, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of Rs.300/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. The sentences of imprisonment, imposed on the appellant, were directed to run concurrently and Rs.2,000/-, out of the total fine amount, if realized, was directed to be paid to the victim as compensation. The period of detention already undergone by the appellant was directed to be set off against the sentence imposed.

3. The facts, relevant for adjudication of this appeal, in brief, are as follows-

(a) That the appellant was an Assistant Teacher in the Nazareth School, Pfutsero and the victim girl was a student of class X in the same school.

(b) On 14.11.2021, one ASI Selu Koza lodged an FIR before the Officer-in-Charge of Pfutsero Police Station, inter-alia, alleging that one Founder Chung (present appellant), who was serving as an Assistant Teacher in the Nazareth School, Pfutsero had called a girl student of class X to the staff room, pushed her inside the toilet of staff room and molested her, on 12.11.2014, during school hours.

(c) On receipt of the said FIR, the Officer-in-Charge of Pfutsero Police Station registered Pfutsero P.S. Case No. 0029/2014 under Section 354 A (1) (i) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 7/8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as POCSO Act, 2012) and initiated the investigation of the case. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer laid the charge-sheet, under Section 354 A (1) (i) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 18 of the POCSO Act, 2012, against the present appellant.

(d) Though, the present appellant was arrested on 17.11.2014, in connection with the said case, however, by order dated 18.12.2014, he was released on bail and he faced the trial remaining on bail.

(e) On 31.07.2018, learned Special Judge, Phek framed charges under Section 354 A (1) (i) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 18 of the POCSO Act, 2012 against the present appellant. When the said charges were read over and explained to the present appellant, he pleaded not guilty to the said charges and claimed to be tried.

(f) During trial, the prosecution side adduced the evidence of seven witnesses including the victim. The appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., during which he pleaded his innocence.

(g) After completion of the trial, learned Special Judge, Phek convicted the present appellant and sentenced him as already stated herein above in paragraph no. 2 of this judgment. The Section 18 of the POCSO Act, 2012 was not found to be applicable in the present case by the learned Special Judge, Phek as she was of the opinion that the prosecution side failed to prove the age of the victim, and the victim was not found to be minor on the date of the offence for which the appellant was convicted.

4. Before discussing the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the par