Child Trust Teacher Delhi High Court Teachers Convictio Sexual Assault

Upholding the five-year jail term handed out to a school teacher held guilty of sexually assaulting his minor student in 2016, the Delhi High Court said that a child’s trust in a teacher is “sacred”.

Justice Madhu Jain, while hearing the teacher’s appeal against the conviction and sentencing, asked educational institutions to “ensure that children are made aware of their rights and are encouraged to speak about any conduct which causes them fear, discomfort or insecurity.”

“A child ordinarily reposes trust and confidence in a teacher. Such trust is sacred to the teacher-student relationship and carries with it a corresponding duty to protect the child, rather than to abuse or breach the trust so reposed. The abuse of such position, particularly against a young girl of an age comparable to that of the teacher’s own daughter, is a matter of grave concern and cannot be treated as a mere breach of discipline or propriety,” the August 12 order added.

In her complaint on August 11, 2016, the minor survivor alleged that the teacher had behaved with her “inappropriately” on multiple occasions within the school premises.

The teacher was tried for the offence of aggravated sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) and outraging the modesty of the survivor under the IPC. The school principal was also tried for not reporting the incident. On April 16, a Delhi trial court held the man guilty and in May the court sentenced him to five years in jail.

The court found “no confusion” about the identity of the convict nor the “nature of the acts” he had committed. The survivor’s testimony was found to be consistent about the places within the school premises where she was assaulted. “The fact that there are variations in the narration regarding peripheral details, such as the precise date or sequence of events, cannot by itself render the testimony unreliable, particularly when the core allegation against the appellant (the convict) has remained intact. The learned Trial Court has considered these discrepancies and has rightly found them to be minor in nature,” the order read.

Referring to the role of the school principal, the order said that a child who speaks up against such conduct “ought not to be made to feel that she has done something wrong” by speaking about it. The school environment, the judge went on, must instil confidence in both girls and boys to come forward and place their concerns before the persons entrusted with their care.

Arguing for the teacher, advocates S K Raghuvanshi and A Deb Kumar pointed to “serious discrepancies” in the date and place of the alleged incident. They pleaded leniency for their client, stating that he was 65 years old and suffered from various health issues. The defense further argued that there were witnesses who did not support the prosecution’s case.

On the contrary, the state’s counsel Digam Singh Dagar argued that the fact that some witnesses had not fully supported the case did not render the minor survivor’s testimony unreliable. He contended that the trial court had rightly held the alleged discrepancies concerning the date and place of the incident as “minor” and “inconsequential”.