Supreme Court acquits teachers in POCSO case due to inconsistent evidence: Nirmal Premkumar vs. State (2024) INSC 193 (11 March 2024)

Date of the Judgment: 11th March, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 193
Judges: Dipankar Datta, J., K.V. Viswanathan, J., and Sandeep Mehta, J.

Can inconsistencies in witness testimonies lead to the acquittal of the accused in cases of sexual harassment? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case involving two teachers accused of offenses under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The court’s decision highlights the importance of credible and consistent evidence in criminal trials, especially those involving sensitive issues like child sexual abuse.

The Supreme Court, in this case, overturned the conviction of two teachers who were accused of offenses under the POCSO Act and Section 506 of the IPC. The court found significant contradictions and discrepancies in the prosecution’s evidence, leading to the acquittal of the accused. The judgment emphasizes the need for a high degree of reliability in witness testimonies, especially in cases where the prosecution’s case rests heavily on the victim’s account.

The bench was composed of Justices Dipankar Datta, K.V. Viswanathan, and Sandeep Mehta. The judgment was authored by Justice Dipankar Datta.

Case Background

The case revolves around three incidents involving a 13-year-old student (P.W.2), and two teachers of her school, A-1 (Tamil teacher) and A-2 (Social Science teacher).

On 14th February, 2018, A-1 allegedly approached the victim in her classroom and forcefully gave her roses, jasmine flowers, and chocolate, despite her refusal. Later that day, A-2 allegedly questioned the victim about not talking to A-1, stating that A-1 would die if she continued to ignore him and she would be responsible for it. On 15th February, 2018, A-1 allegedly called the victim to the physical education teacher’s room and questioned her for not talking to him. He dismissed her concerns about her family finding out about the situation.

The victim’s parents learned about these incidents through the victim’s maternal aunt (P.W.4). The victim’s father (P.W.1) approached the Headmaster (P.W.10) of the school, but no action was taken. Consequently, P.W.1 filed a complaint with the local police on 18th February, 2018.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Special Court convicted A-1 under section 12 of the POCSO Act and sentenced him to three years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 30,000. A-2 was convicted under section 506 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to two years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 20,000.

The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed the criminal appeal filed by A-1 and A-2, upholding the Special Court’s decision. The High Court stated that the findings of the Special Court did not warrant any interference.

Legal Framework

The case involves the following legal provisions:

• Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act): This section deals with the punishment for sexual harassment.
• Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (I.P.C.): This section deals with the punishment for criminal intimidation.

Arguments

Appellants’ Submissions:

• The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
• There were significant inconsistencies and contradictions in the oral evidence, which were overlooked by the lower courts.
• The victim’s testimony was unreliable, and no other witness corroborated the crucial fact of A-1 giving flowers and chocolate to her.
• The prosecution could not establish that the actions of A-1 and A-2 carried ‘sexual intent’.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The High Court correctly reassessed the evidence and concurred with the Special Court’s judgment.
• Teachers hold a position of trust and responsibility, and their actions can have serious ramifications for society.
• The appellants did not present a case for interference, and the appeal should be dismissed.

The appellants argued that the prosecution’s case was built on unreliable evidence, marked by inconsistencies and contradictions. They contended that the lower courts were biased by the nature of the allegations, overlooking the lack of corroboration and the flaws in the victim’s testimony. The respondent, on the other hand, emphasized the gravity of the charges, the trust placed in teachers, and the need to uphold the convictions.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the evidence on record is sufficient to record conviction against A-1 and A-2?
2. If the answer to the above is in the affirmative, what should be the appropriate punishment to be imposed on A-1 and A-2?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 11 of the POCSO Act: Deals with sexual harassment.
• Section 12 of the POCSO Act: Deals with punishment for sexual harassment.
• Section 506 of the I.P.C.: Deals with punishment for criminal intimidation.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court followed the principles laid down in Ganesan v. State [CITATION], which states that the sole testimony of the victim, if reliable, is sufficient for conviction. However, the court found that the victim’s testimony was not reliable in this case.
• The Court distinguished the facts from Rai Sandeep v. State (NCT of Delhi) [CITATION], emphasizing the need for a ‘sterling witness’ with consistent testimony, which was absent in this case.
• The Court relied on Krishan Kumar Malik v. State of Haryana [CITATION], which held that a conviction cannot be sustained if the victim’s testimony is unreliable.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the lack of credible evidence and the numerous inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. The Court emphasized the importance of a ‘sterling witness’ whose testimony is consistent and reliable. The Court was also concerned with the potential for misuse of the POCSO Act and the need to protect the rights of the accused.

The Court noted that the prosecution’s case was marked by a lack of effort, with material contradictions in the depositions of the witnesses, including the victim. The Court also highlighted the flawed approach of the High Court, which seemed to be biased by the nature of the allegations.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

“Fact:Law” Ratio Table

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the alternative interpretation of the events but rejected them due to the lack of credible evidence. The Court emphasized that while sexual harassment is a serious offense, the evidence must be sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The majority opinion, delivered by Justice Dipankar Datta, found that the prosecution’s case was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court highlighted the inconsistencies in the victim’s statements, the lack of corroborating evidence, and the flawed approach of the High Court.

Key Takeaways

• The judgment emphasizes the importance of credible and consistent evidence in cases involving sexual offenses, particularly those under the POCSO Act.
• The testimony of the victim must be reliable and free from significant contradictions to warrant a conviction.
• Courts must be circumspect while evaluating evidence and not be swayed by the nature of the allegations alone.
• The benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused if the prosecution’s case is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

This judgment may have implications for future cases under the POCSO Act, highlighting the need for thorough investigation and credible evidence. It also serves as a reminder that the seriousness of the allegations does not negate the need for a fair trial and the protection of the rights of the accused.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the immediate release of A-1 and A-2 from custody if they were not wanted in any other case.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction under the POCSO Act and Section 506 of the IPC cannot be sustained if the prosecution’s evidence is inconsistent, unreliable, and lacks corroboration. The judgment reinforces the principle that the testimony of a victim, while important, must be scrutinized for credibility and consistency. This case does not introduce any new legal principles but reaffirms the existing standards for evaluating evidence in criminal trials.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court acquitted A-1 and A-2, setting aside the convictions recorded by the Special Court and affirmed by the High Court. The Court found that the prosecution’s case was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt due to significant inconsistencies and contradictions in the evidence. The judgment highlights the importance of credible and consistent evidence in criminal trials, especially those involving sensitive issues like child sexual abuse.