Back
S.TALAPATRA
Kishore Debbarma – Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura – Respondent
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 th
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
