FACTS- It was the case of the prosecution that the accused/teacher in between the classes gave chocolates and flowers to the victim/student. When the victim resisted, the teacher forcefully gave the flowers by twisting her hands. Moreover, the prosecution also alleged that the accused/teacher showed his sexual intent towards the victim by asking her friend over call to send the victim to the Physical Education Training room.

Based on the incident, a case was registered against the accused/teacher under Section 12 of the POCSO Act (Punishment for Sexual Harassment). The trial court convicted the accused/teacher and sentenced him to suffer three years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 30,000/-, and the High Court upheld the same. Following this, the accused/teacher preferred the plea before the Supreme Court.

ISSUE- Whether Allegation of Sexual Harassment Committed Within Closed Confines Requires Closer Scrutiny If Victim's Statement Is Doubtful?

OBSERVATION- Before the Supreme Court, it was contended by the appellant/teacher that both the Trial Court and High Court committed error in finding the appellant guilty of sexually harassing the victim because apart from the victim herself, no testimony of other students was placed by the prosecution to prove that the accused had given flowers to the victim forcefully in between the class.

Supreme Court stated if the testimony of the victim suffers from contradictions or can't be relied upon, then the courts should strive to find out the true genesis of the incident.

Here, the Court noted that only one student was examined as a witness to prove that the accused had given flowers and chocolates to the victim. But she turned hostile during the trial. Also, nowhere in the deposition has the victim said that she was pinched by the accused. However, the High Court held that the accused perpetrated physical attack on the victim by pinching her. The omissions of the prosecution to examine the headmaster of the school and the brother of the victim, who was studying in the same school, were also cited by the Court as glaring mistakes.

Based on the abovementioned observations, the Supreme Court reversed the accused/teacher's conviction to acquittal by giving the benefit of doubt due to missing links in the present case to convict the accused.