Ghaziabad POCSO Court Delivers Justice: Computer Teacher Sentenced for Attempted Sodomy of Student
A special Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) court in Ghaziabad has delivered a significant verdict, sentencing a computer teacher to three years of rigorous imprisonment for attempting to sodomize a Class 10 student a decade ago. The court, presided over by Judge Deepika Tiwary, convicted the tutor under sections 7/8 of the POCSO Act and section 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), while also imposing a fine of Rs 11,000.
Timeline of the Case and Police Action
The disturbing incident dates back to January 2016, when the minor victim, who had just completed Class 9 and was attending computer tuition classes, went to the institute to get a printout of his Aadhar card. According to the prosecution's case, the tutor inappropriately touched the boy, forced him to touch private parts, and attempted to sodomize him. When the boy resisted, the teacher allegedly slapped him.
The traumatized student immediately ran out of the institute and reported the incident to his father and a neighbor. The father testified in court that when he returned to the institute minutes later, he found the tutor naked. A formal complaint was filed at Tronica City police station on January 19, 2016, just one day after the assault.
Police registered a First Information Report (FIR) under multiple sections:
- IPC Section 377 (carnal intercourse against the order of nature)
- IPC Section 511 (punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment)
- IPC Section 323 (voluntarily causing simple hurt)
- POCSO Act Sections 7/8
The investigation progressed swiftly, with police filing a charge sheet on March 13, 2016, and the court framing charges on July 18 of the same year.
Court Proceedings and Witness Testimonies
During the trial, the teacher consistently denied all charges against him. The prosecution presented six witnesses, including:
- The victim himself
- The victim's father
- Investigating officers
- Other relevant parties
The defense, meanwhile, produced two witnesses who attempted to challenge the prosecution's narrative. They argued that there had been a monetary transaction between the tutor and the boy's father that led to a dispute, suggesting the case was registered out of malice. The defense also claimed the tutor never operated a computer institute and pointed out that there were no independent witnesses, with all prosecution witnesses being relatives or interested parties.
Furthermore, the defense counsel highlighted what they described as inconsistencies in the witnesses' statements, attempting to cast doubt on the reliability of the prosecution's case.
Court's Reasoning and Legal Analysis
In her detailed judgment delivered on Wednesday, Judge Deepika Tiwary systematically addressed the defense arguments. The court ruled that the argument about inconsistencies was unacceptable in the context of sexual offence cases.
"The use of words like 'committed a wrongdoing' in the examination-in-chief, rather than indicating any substantial change in the nature of the incident, appears to be a result of the victim's language and mental state, especially while describing it in court," observed Judge Tiwary.
The judgment noted that medical evidence provided no concrete proof of complete penetration, which supported the classification of the offence as an attempt rather than a completed act. The court emphasized that the victim had consistently described the incident as an attempt at rape in all three previous statements.
Judge Tiwary articulated an important legal principle: "It is a well-established legal principle that in sexual offences, if some discrepancies are found in minor or descriptive aspects of the incident in various statements of the victim, the entire prosecution story cannot be declared unreliable on this basis alone, as long as the basic structure of the incident, the role of the accused, the time, place and nature of the criminal act remain consistent and coherent."
Sentencing and Legal Implications
The court determined that since the offences under IPC sections 377 and 511 and POCSO Act sections 7/8 were essentially the same, the teacher would be sentenced under the POCSO provisions along with section 323 of IPC. Judge Tiwary ordered that all sentences would run concurrently and would be adjusted against any time the accused had already spent in jail.
This judgment reinforces the judicial system's commitment to protecting children from sexual predators and demonstrates how courts carefully evaluate evidence in sensitive cases involving minors. The ruling sends a strong message about the consequences of such offences while upholding legal principles regarding witness testimony consistency in sexual assault cases.
