Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
S. Talapatra, J.
Kishore Debbarma - Appellant
Vs.
State of Tripura - Respondent
Crl. A. No. 30 of 2017
Decided On : 08-04-2019
POCSO - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences - 12 - The court discussed the elements of Section 8 of the POCSO Act and found the appellant guilty of sexual harassment under Section 11 of the POCSO Act. The court analyzed the evidence and concluded that the appellant committed sexual harassment, leading to his conviction under Section 12 of the POCSO Act.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 12 of the POCSO Act for sexually harassing a minor girl who took private tuition from him. The victim's mother filed a complaint alleging that the appellant had molested her daughter during tuition sessions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty of sexual harassment under Section 11 of the POCSO Act but acquitted him on benefit of doubt due to inconsistencies in the evidence.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the credibility of the victim's testimony, the presence of elements of sexual harassment, and the reliability of the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the elements of sexual harassment under Section 11 of the POCSO Act and the assessment of the evidence presented, leading to the acquittal of the appellant.
Final Decision: The appellant was acquitted from the charge under Section 12 of the POCSO Act due to inconsistencies in the evidence, and his sureties were discharged from their liabilities.
Key Points: - The appellant was convicted under Section 12 of the POCSO Act for sexually harassing a minor girl who took private tuition from him (!) [28000024640001]. - The Special Court found the appellant guilty of sexual harassment under Section 11 of the POCSO Act but acquitted him due to inconsistencies in the evidence (!) [28000024640004]. - The court analyzed the elements of Section 8 of the POCSO Act and found them absent, but found elements of Section 11 to be present (!) [28000024640004]. - Section 11 of the POCSO Act defines acts constituting sexual harassment, including uttering words, making sounds, gestures, exhibiting objects or body parts with sexual intent (!) (!) . - The appellant was convicted under Section 12 of the POCSO Act by treating Section 11 as a minor offense in relation to Section 8, as per Section 222 of the Cr.P.C. [28000024640005]. - The victim's testimony contained inconsistencies, such as the threat of not being promoted to the next class, which was deemed improbable given the appellant's and victim's schools [28000024640027]. - The victim's statement regarding the appellant touching her upper body was not present in the complaint or the mother's deposition [28000024640027]. - The mother's statement about the appellant compelling the victim to molest his penis was not found in the FIR or the victim's statement under Section 164(5) Cr.P.C. [28000024640027]. - The defense presented evidence (DW-2 and DW-3) suggesting the victim made false allegations to avoid tuition due to the appellant being a tough teacher [28000024640027]. - The High Court found serious doubt about the appellant's culpable state of mind due to inconsistencies and the defense evidence, leading to acquittal on benefit of doubt [28000024640028]. - The appellant was acquitted from the charge under Section 12 of the POCSO Act due to inconsistencies in the evidence (!) .
1. This is an appeal by the convict, hereinafter referred to as the appellant, from the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 16.09.2017 delivered in Special (POCSO) 27 of 2015 by the Special Judge, Unakoti Judicial District, Kamalpur. The appellant has been convicted by the said judgment under Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short POCSO Act). Pursuant to the said judgment of conviction, the appellant has been sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- (twenty thousand) with default stipulation.
2. The prosecution was launched against the appellant in terms of the complaint dated 05.04.2014, made to the Officer-in- Charge, Manu police station, Longthorai Valley, Dhalai disclosing that her daughter (name withheld for protecting her identity) used to take private tuition from the appellant. About 7-8 months back from day of filing the complaint when her daughter went to take tuition, the appellant closed the door from inside became undressed, asked the victim to touch his penis and to get undressed. It has been further alleged that he had to sit close to the victim so that she could hold penis. By the abrupt turn of events, the victim felt scared and started weeping. Thereafter on 02.04.2018 on Wednesday, the victim again went to his room for tuition at about 5 p.m. when the appellant repeated the similar act. As a result, the victim broke out tears and left the place. For outraging modesty of her daughter, the complaint was filed by the complainant namely Rama Debbarma. After the incident of 02.04.2018, when the complainant persuaded the victim to go to take tuition she declined to go for taking tuition. Then, the complainant in order to send her to take tuition had beaten up her [the victim]. At that time, the victim divulged what she had faced. The victim had also stated to the complainant that she was warned by the appellant that if she had disclosed the said incident to anyone, then she would definitely be unsuccessful in the examination. On the basis of the said complaint, Manu P.S. Case No.05/2014 under Section 354(A) and 506 of the IPC read with Section 10/12 of the POCSO Act was registered and taken up for investigation.
3. On completion of the investigation, the police filed the final report charge shetting the appellant. On taking cognizance the Special Court, Unakoti Judicial District, Kamalpur framed the charge under Section 354(B) of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. The appellant pleaded innocence and submitted that the victim had lied and such lie is manifest on the face of the records. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution had adduced as many as 12 witnesses including the victim [PW-2]. In addition to oral evidence, the prosecution admitted six documentary evidence including the birth certificate of the victim [Exbt.6].
4. To rebut the evidence of the prosecution, the appellant himself was examined along with two other witnesses [DWs- 1-3]. On recording of the evidence of the prosecution, the appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. when the appellant reiterated his innocence by stating that the incriminating evidence as surfaced is false and is to frame him without any basis. After analysing the evidence, the Special Court returned the judgment of conviction under Section 12 of the POCSO Act. During imposing the sentence, the Special Judge, Unakoti District has categorically observed as under:
"In the case at hand from the prosecution evidence the facts are proved only that accused showed his penis to the Victim-X and he also asked her to show her vagina. A careful analysis of the evidence of Victim-X I am of the opinion that there is absence of elements of section 354B of IPC and also the elements of section 8 of POCSO Act, 2012. In the prosecution evidence there is no evidence of using criminal force or assault as define respectively under section 350 and 351 of I
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
