X vs Rajesh Kumar

REPORTABLE 2025 INSC 579 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos. OF 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos. 12563-12566 of 2022)

X ETC. … APPELLANTS

Versus

RAJESH KUMAR & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. This case is a glaring example of denial of justice to

the victims of offences under the Protection of Children from

Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, `the POCSO Act’), and

possibly certain provisions of the Indian Penal Code (for short,

`IPC’). The victims were students in a school in Tirur, where

respondent No.1 was a Computer Teacher. It was alleged that he

behaved inappropriately with the female students of the school

besides asking obnoxious questions like how many sanitary napkins

they had used in a year. It was alleged that he would hold the

hands of the students in the computer lab while using mouse in the

lab and do other inappropriate actions. The female students made

complaints to the Principal of the school, who directed the Head of

the Department to inspect the computer lab where several women’s

magazines and CDs containing questionable content were recovered. Signature Not Verified

A show-cause notice was issued to respondent No.1, who is stated to Digitally signed by SATISH KUMAR YADAV Date: 2025.04.28 17:34:12 IST Reason:

have apologized and promised to improve his conduct in future.

3. Respondent No.1, however, allegedly did not mend his ways 2

and continued to misbehave with the female students to the extent

that he sent vulgar and obscene images on the whatsApp group,

thinking that these numbers belong to the students whereas the

students had actually given the numbers of their parents. Again

complaints were made; the police was called and respondent No.1 was

arrested. It seems that respondent No.1 exerted some influence, as

the statements of all the victim students were not recorded, except

that of a 19 year’s old student. The Parents Teachers Association

then filed a Writ Petition before the High Court and it was only

upon judicial intervention that an FIR was finally registered

against respondent No.1. Shockingly, respondent No.1 claimed to

have entered into a settlement with the 19 year’s old student, and

based upon that, he sought quashing of the FIR before the High

Court. Meanwhile, the statements of some of the victim students

were recorded and based thereupon, five separate FIRs, i.e., FIR

Crime Nos. 291, 292, 293, 294 and 295 of 2017, were registered

against respondent No.1 on the same day, i.e., 04.04.2017 at Tirur

Police Station under Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act. As stated

earlier, FIR Crime No.294/2017 was `settled’ by respondent No.1

with the victim, who was stated to be 19 years’ old student.

Respondent No.1, thereafter, approached the High Court seeking

quashing of the remaining FIRs and vide the impugned judgment, the

High Court has, after holding a mini trial and after taking note of

the contents of the statements alleged to have been made by the

victims at the preliminary stage, come to a conclusion that “it is

not possible to infer or impute that the said act has been done by

the petitioner with any sexual intent.” 3

4. All that we wish to observe at this stage is that the

High Court ought not to have ignored the fact that respondent No.1

was a teacher and the victims were his students. The preliminary

statements recorded before the Police Authorities reveal that prima

facie ingredients of offences under the POCSO Act, for the purpose

of subjecting respondent No.1 to a trial, are made out. We are fail

to understand as to how the High Court construed that Section 7 of

the POCSO Act will not be attracted unless there is an act

involving physical contact with sexual intent. Section 7 of the

POCSO Act defines ‘sexual assailt’ to include situations where a

person `with sexual intent touches the vagina, penis, anus or

breast of the child or makes the child touch the vagina, penis,

anus or breast of such person or any other person, or does any

other act with sexual intent which involves physical contact

without penetration’. The allegations that respondent No.1 would

hold the hands of female students in the computer lab while using

the mouse clearly falls within the ambit of `any other act with

sexual intent which involves physical contact’. In the context of a

teacher-student relationship, where the teacher is in a position of

authority and trust, such physical contact, when accompanied by

other inappropriate behavior including asking invasive questions

about sanitary napkins and sending vulgar images, provides

sufficient basis to infer sexual intent for the purpose of

proceeding with trial. The issue has been apparently pre-judged by

the High Court without even permitting the victims to enter witness

box and depose about various instances, which are briefly noted in

their preliminary statements.

4

5. We refrain from making further observations at this stage

as they may prejudice respondent No.1 or anyone else. Regardless

thereto, we have no reason to doubt that this was a fit case where

respondent No.1 ought to have been subjected to trial by ensuring

that the identity of the victims was not revealed, they are treated

as protected witnesses and their statements to be recorded at the

earliest. This is extremely important keeping in view the fact

that respondent No.1 has successfully prevailed upon one of the

victims, who allegedly “settled the dispute” and paved the way for

respondent No.1 to get one of the cases quashed.

6. It is pertinent to note that well before the impugned

judgment of the High Court, the investigation was complete and the

chargesheet had been filed and even the statements of some of the

victims, under Section 164 Cr.P.C., had already been recorded.

Unfortunately, all these aspects were not highlighted before the

High Court.

7. For the reasons aforestated, and without going into

further details, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set

aside, and the Trial Court before whom the chargesheets have been

filed, is directed to proceed with the trial. The matter regarding

framing of charges shall be concluded within two weeks. The Trial

Court is further directed to take up the matter at least twice in a

month and first of all record the statements of all the alleged

victims.

8. The prosecution will ensure that the victims are treated

as protected witnesses. Respondent No.1 shall not be permitted, in

any manner, to contact the victims and/or influence them directly 5

or indirectly.

9. The Management of the M.M.M. Higher Secondary School,

Koottayi is directed to keep respondent No.1 under suspension till

the conclusion of trial. The Management, however, shall be at

liberty to hold domestic enquiry against respondent No.1 in

accordance with the prescribed rules independent of the criminal

prosecution restored by us. Ordered accordingly.

10. The appeals stand allowed in the above terms.

11. As a result, the pending interlocutory application also

stands disposed of.

......................……...J. (SURYA KANT)

..............……......……...J. (NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)

NEW DELHI;

APRIL 23, 2025.