Facts of the Case

The case before the Punjab and Haryana High Court concerned an application for suspension of sentence filed by a schoolteacher, Mr. D, who had been convicted under Section 354-A of the IPC and Sections 10 and 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The conviction related to allegations made by a 12-year-old Class VII student, who stated that on 02.11.2022 the teacher called her to meet him at school, passed obscene remarks, and touched her inappropriately. She narrated the incident to her father upon returning home, following which an FIR was registered the same day. The next morning, 03.11.2022, the child attended the Parent-Teacher Meeting with her parents, and later, photographs of her in school captioned “School Mein Maje” were posted on her Instagram account. The trial court convicted the teacher, sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment extending up to five years. He subsequently filed an appeal, along with an application seeking suspension of his sentence during the pendency of the appeal.

Contentions of the Petitioner

The petitioner-appellant argued that he had been falsely implicated due to a personal grudge held by the child. Senior counsel submitted that prior to the incident, the appellant had reprimanded the child for bringing a mobile phone to school and making video reels, which allegedly resulted in resentment and motivated false allegations. It was contended that the prosecution case lacked corroboration, particularly medical evidence, and that the child’s post-incident behaviour did not align with the conduct of a traumatised minor. The petitioner further emphasised that he had already undergone more than one year of imprisonment and that the appeal, being unlikely to be heard soon, warranted suspension of his sentence.

Contentions of the Respondent

The State opposed the plea, arguing that the conviction was based on the victim’s consistent account, which had been accepted by the trial court. It was contended that the gravity of the offences under POCSO, particularly involving sexual harassment by a teacher, demanded caution in granting suspension of sentence. The State maintained that the victim had promptly disclosed the incident, that the FIR was registered immediately, and that the petitioner had failed to demonstrate any compelling reason to warrant suspension of sentence.

Court’s Observations

Justice Namit Kumar of the Punjab and Haryana High Court examined the conduct of the child immediately after the alleged incident and found it anomalous in the context of allegations of sexual molestation. The Court noted that “any child who would have experienced such an incident must have been mentally traumatised for a while, whereas, on 03.11.2022 … the victim had attended the P.T.M. along with her parents and she also clicked some photographs in the school and uploaded the same on social media with the caption ‘School Mein Maje’.” The Court remarked that such behaviour “cannot reasonably be anticipated from a minor, who was subjected to sexual molestation by her teacher at school merely a day prior.”

Emphasising the inconsistencies between expected behaviour and the victim’s actual conduct, the Court held that the prosecutrix’s demeanour “does not inspire confidence in the prosecution version” and that her actions “exhibit no sign of fear, trauma and emotional distress that would ordinarily be expected from a victim of such a grave offence.” Further, the Court highlighted the absence of medical corroboration, observing that “the instant case is not supported by any medical or scientific evidence … the medical examination of the victim was conducted on 03.11.2022, whereas the FIR had been registered on 02.11.2022 … Moreover, the medical record reflects that the victim had changed her clothes prior to the said examination … which may have a bearing on the evidentiary value of the medical findings.”

The Court concluded that the appeal raised arguable points, and with no likelihood of its early hearing and the appellant having spent over one year in custody, the case warranted suspension of sentence during pendency.

Court’s Order

Without commenting on the merits of the case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court ordered suspension of the petitioner’s sentence during the pendency of his appeal. The Court held that the inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case, the absence of medical or scientific corroboration, the conduct of the victim following the alleged incident, and the delay in the likely hearing of the appeal justified granting relief. Consequently, the application for suspension of sentence was allowed.

Written by Adv. Deeksha Rai