Case title: Nirmal Premkumar and Anr. vs State Rep. By Inspector of Police
Case no.: Criminal Appeal No. 1098 OF 2024
Decided on: 11.03.2024
Quorum: Hon’ble Justice DIPANKAR DATTA, Hon’ble Justice K.V. VISWANATHAN, Hon’ble Justice SANDEEP MEHTA
FACTS OF THE CASE:
The case revolves around allegations of harassment against A-1 and A-2, who were teachers at a school. The first incident took place in a classroom where A-1 allegedly gave the victim flowers and chocolate. This action led to a complaint being filed against both teachers under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
During the legal proceedings, various inconsistencies emerged in the testimonies provided by witnesses, including the victim. These contradictions raised doubts about the credibility of the prosecution’s case.
LEGAL PROVISIONS:
The legal provisions involved in the case were:
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act: Charges were framed against A-1 under section 12 of the POCSO Act, and A-2 faced charges under sections 12 and 17 of the POCSO Act.
Indian Penal Code (IPC): Both A-1 and A-2 faced charges under section 506 of the IPC.
Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): The examination of A-1 and A-2 under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. followed the prosecution’s evidence.
Judgment and Order: The case involved an appeal against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras.
APPELLANTS CONTENTION:
The appellants raised the following contentions in the case:
The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the appellants should have been acquitted.
Glaring inconsistencies and contradictions in the oral evidence were overlooked by the Special Court and the High Court due to a bias towards assuming guilt in a teacher-student harassment scenario.
Lack of witness testimony, other than the victim’s, regarding A-1 giving flowers and chocolate to her raised doubts about the prosecution’s case.
Contradictions in the victim’s testimony cast doubt on whether the actions of A-1 and A-2 had a sexual intent.
Emphasized the flaws in the decisions of the Special Court and the High Court, urging the Court to accept the appeal and acquit A-1 and A-2.
RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:
The respondents, represented by the State, contended the following in the case:
Supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence by the Special Court.
Argued that the High Court thoroughly reassessed the evidence before concurring with the Special Court’s decision. Emphasized the significant trust and responsibility teachers hold in students’ lives, highlighting the importance of addressing allegations of misconduct seriously.
Argued that the High Court’s decision was based on a careful review of the evidence and not on misconceptions or biases.
Stressed the need to uphold the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court based on the evidence presented during the trial.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:
The court analysed the evidence presented during the trial, considering the allegations of harassment against teachers A-1 and A-2. It noted the inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies, particularly that of the victim, which raised doubts about the prosecution’s case. The court emphasized the importance of credible evidence, especially in cases involving sexual offenses. After a thorough examination of the facts and legal provisions, the court concluded that the circumstances necessary to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt were not fully established. Therefore, the court held that the conviction of A-1 and A-2 could not be upheld. The judgment underscored the need for a stringent evaluation of evidence in sensitive cases like those involving allegations of harassment.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement reviewed by – Ayush Shrivastava
