The High Court of Jharkhand while dismissing a discharge application of the petitioner, accused under the POCSO Act of sexually harassing his student observed that the petitioner had an evil eye upon the victim for one and a half years and even after being removed from the post of teacher from the school, he kept making efforts to meet her and further observed that the allegations are further corroborated with the statements of various witnesses.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner, a teacher accused under the POCSO Act for allegedly committing sexual harassment on his student, a minor girl filed the present petition against the impugned order of the trial court whereby his discharge application was dismissed.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contended that the trial court had failed to apply its judicial mind while passing the impugned order which is based on an erroneous finding and has further failed to take into consideration that no prima facie case is made out against the petitioner to proceed with the trial so as to frame the charge for the offence under section 11 and 12 of POCSO Act.
Observations of the Court:
The court stated that while framing the charge the trial court has to take into consideration the allegations made in the FIR and the evidence collected by the IO during the investigation if, from them, there is sufficient ground to proceed with the trial against the accused the court should decline the discharge application of the accused and further while disposing of the discharge application of the accused the court should not appreciate the evidence on record and conducting the mini-trial at the time of disposing of discharge application is not permissible and further even if there is sufficient material for the grave suspicion, the court should decline the discharge application.
Further, the court referred to the judgment in the case of Sanghi Brothers (Indore) Private Limited v. Sanjay Choudhary and others wherein it was held that at the stage of framing the charge the court has to apply its mind to the question of whether or not there is any ground for presuming the commission of offence by the accused and further the decision in the case of Vikram Johar vs State of U.P wherein it was held that while considering the discharge application, the Court is to exercise its judicial mind to determine whether a case for trial has been made out or not.
The court referred to the FIR and observed that the petitioner was having an evil eye upon the victim for one and a half years and even after being removed from the post of teacher at the school, he kept making efforts to meet her and further observed that the allegations are further corroborated with the statements of various witnesses. The court further referred to Section 11(4) of the POCSO Act, 2012 and stated that the conduct of the petitioner comes within its periphery.
The decision of the Court:
The court upheld the impugned order and dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Rahul Yadav @ Hari Kumar Yadav vs. State of Jharkhand and anr.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subhash Chand
Case No.: Cr. Revision No.663 of 2022
Advocate for the Applicant: Mrs. Jasvindar Mazumdar
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Abhay Kumar Tiwari and Mr. Shekhar Pd. Gupta
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
