S.C. Narang vs State (Nct Of Delhi)

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2125 OF 2025 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Criminal) No.824 of 2023)

S.C. NARANG ... APPELLANT(S)

VS.

STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR. ... RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

ABHAY S. OKA, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of a very unfortunate

incident. A four year old child was studying in the

nursery class at Maxfort School, Dwarka, New Delhi. The

alleged incident occurred on 17th November 2017. The girl

child complained of pain in her private parts, and upon

enquiry from the child, it was learnt that one of her

classmates had allegedly sexually assaulted her.

Therefore, a First Information Report was registered

under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and

Section Signature Not Verified 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2025.05.14 18:45:45 IST Reason: Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO Act'). The police,

Page 1 of 7 after investigation, filed a charge sheet. Two protest

petitions were filed by the complainant (second

respondent, mother of the victim child).

3. We may note here that since the prime accused was

less than 7 years of age, the police filed a charge-sheet

only under Section 21 of the POCSO Act read with Section

75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of

Children) Act, 2015 (for short "the JJ Act"). The charge

sheet was filed against four persons: the Principal of

the School, two teachers, and the Vice-

Chairman/officiating Chairman of the Managing Committee,

which runs the school. The present appellant is the

Chairman of the Managing Committee. On the basis of the

second protest petition, the learned Special Judge issued

a summons to the appellant. The present appellant

challenged the order by filing a Revision Application,

which was dismissed by the High Court by the impugned

order.

4. The Special Court firstly observed that the

appellant being the Chairman was responsible for

implementation of the Guidelines issued by the

Directorate of Education on 15th September, 2017 which

made it mandatory to install sufficient number of CCTV

Page 2 of 7 cameras in the school premises so as to mandatorily cover

all class rooms, labs, corridor, parking, library, areas

outside wash rooms etc. The Special Court found fault

with the appellant on the ground that the CCTV cameras

were not installed in accordance with the Guidelines, and

therefore, negligence was attributed to the appellant.

5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the

appellant has invited our attention to Section 75 of the

JJ Act. He submitted that even taking the case of the

prosecution as correct, it cannot be said that the

appellant had the actual charge or control over the

victim child. He submitted that the incident occurred

within a few days of the Guidelines dated 15th September,

2017. Therefore, when the incident occurred, the CCTV

cameras were not installed, which was done subsequently.

He pointed out that the Principal of the school, two

teachers and the Vice-Chairman have already been shown as

accused for the offence punishable under Section 75 of

the JJ Act.

6. We also heard the learned Additional Solicitor

General, who appeared for the respondent-State. The

learned counsel appearing for the second respondent

submitted that, as the Chairman of the institution

Page 3 of 7 running the school, the appellant is fully responsible

for taking care of the children enrolled in the school.

As the Chairman, the appellant had full control over the

school, and that is how Section 75 of the JJ Act applies.

He submitted that the appellant is morally responsible

for ensuring that such an incident does not happen in the

school.

7. Section 75 of the JJ Act reads thus:

“Section 75: Punishment for cruelty to Child:-

Whoever, having the actual charge of, or control over, a child, assaults, abandons, abuses, exposes or willfully neglects the child or causes or procures the child to be assaulted, abandoned abused, exposed or neglected in a manner likely to cause such child unnecessary mental or physical suffering, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine of one lakh rupees or with both:

Provided that in case it is found that such abandonment of the child by the biological parents is due to circumstances beyond their control, it shall be presumed that such abandonment is not wilful and the penal provisions of this section shall not apply in such cases:

Page 4 of 7 Provided further that if such offence is committed by any person employed by or managing an organisation, which is entrusted with the care and protection of the child, he shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment which may extend up to five years, and fine which may extend up to five lakhs rupees:

Provided also that on account of the aforesaid cruelty, if the child is physically incapacitated or develops a mental illness or is rendered mentally unfit to perform regular tasks or has risk to life or limb, such person shall be punishable with rigorous imprisonment, not less than three years but which may be extended up to ten years and shall also be liable to fine of five lakhs rupees.” (Underlines supplied)

8. On a plain reading of the first part of Section 75

of the JJ Act, a person who can be punished for cruelty

to a child must be shown to have either the actual charge

of the child or control over the child. The reference to

the child in Section 75 is to the victim of the offence.

The appellant was the Chairman of the Managing Committee,

which runs a school which has classes from KG to 12 th

standard. Therefore, it is impossible to even allege

that the appellant, being Chairman of the Managing

Page 5 of 7 Committee, had the actual charge of all the children

studying in the school run by the institution. It cannot

be said that he had control over all the children in the

School. He may have control over the management of the

institution which runs the School. That does not give him

control over every child studying in the school. While

considering the applicability of Section 75 of the JJ

Act, we are not concerned with the moral responsibility

of the school's management. Assuming that the appellant

was morally responsible, Section 75 of the JJ Act cannot

be applied unless it is shown that the appellant had the

actual charge of the victim child or control over the

victim child.

9. Therefore, taking the case made out by the State as

well as the second respondent as correct, by no stretch

of imagination, Section 75 of the JJ Act could have been

applied against the appellant. Therefore, the impugned

order dated 24th December, 2020, passed by the Special

Court, as well as the impugned order dated 18th November,

2022, passed by the High Court, are hereby set aside.

10. We, however, make it clear that the observations

and the findings recorded herein are only for the

purposes of examining the case of the appellant. What is

Page 6 of 7 held in this order will have no bearing on the pending

case before the Special Court, and all questions in that

regard are left open.

11. The appeal is accordingly allowed.

..........................J. (ABHAY S.OKA)

..........................J. (UJJAL BHUYAN)

NEW DELHI;

April 22, 2025

Page 7 of 7