The Supreme Court has quashed POCSO proceedings against a school teacher accused of hitting minor girl students on their backs and waists, holding that the material on record did not establish the sexual intent required to make out an offence under the child protection law.
A Bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S Chandurkar, in its September 8 order in Bhaskar Paul v. State of West Bengal, said the allegations reflected inappropriate corporal punishment but did not, on the students’ own statements, disclose sexual assault within the meaning of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
The Court nevertheless made it clear that the teacher’s conduct was unacceptable. It observed that teachers must exercise greater sensitivity while dealing with young students, particularly girls.
But inappropriate physical punishment, the Bench held, cannot by itself be converted into a POCSO offence unless the statutory requirement of sexual intent is satisfied.
The Court also drew attention to the potentially devastating consequences of launching a POCSO prosecution against a teacher. Even an eventual acquittal, it said, may not be enough to repair the professional and personal damage caused by a serious criminal case.
The proceedings stemmed from complaints about geography teacher Bhaskar Paul and his interactions with girl students at the school.
A counselling and enquiry conducted by the District Child Protection Unit in Alipurduar recorded allegations that Paul rubbed students’ backs, pinched them around the waist and made them uncomfortable. The report also contained allegations concerning an alleged touch on a student’s neck and claims that he looked at three students inappropriately.
An FIR was subsequently registered at Samuktala Police Station under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, and proceedings began before the Special Court at Alipurduar.
However, statements later given by two students before a magistrate presented a different picture. According to those statements, Paul would hit them when they had not properly learned their lessons. One student said the teacher struck them on the back and waist, while another referred to him holding her hand.
Paul first approached the Calcutta High Court seeking an end to the criminal proceedings. His plea was rejected, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court.
While examining the case, the Supreme Court focused on Section 7 of the POCSO Act, which defines sexual assault. The provision requires physical contact with a child to be accompanied by sexual intent. Where the alleged offender is a teacher, the offence can fall within the aggravated category under Section 9(f), attracting punishment under Section 10.
The Bench found that the statements of the students did not support the allegation of sexual intent. At most, they indicated corporal punishment.
The Court also questioned aspects of the investigation, including the delay in registration of the FIR. It noted that the headmaster and women teachers who initiated the complaint process had not personally witnessed the alleged incidents and that their accounts were based on information received from others.
Against this backdrop, the Bench concluded that allowing the criminal case to continue would amount to an abuse of the legal process and expose the teacher to serious and irreversible prejudice.
The Supreme Court therefore overturned the Calcutta High Court’s order and brought the proceedings pending before the Alipurduar Special Court to an end.
At the same time, the Court stressed that the teacher’s conduct should not be treated as acceptable. It said educators dealing with children must be conscious of appropriate boundaries and behaviour, but cautioned that the stringent provisions of POCSO cannot be invoked without the ingredients of the statutory offence being established.
