A teacher violated the integrity of the teacher-student relationship by engaging in rape and sexual penetration with underage students, upheld by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh through the learned Judge JUSTICE SABINA and JUSTICE SATYEN VAIDYA, in the case of Raj Kumar vs State Of Himachal Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 142 of 2019).
Brief facts of the case:
Parents of eight out of ten female students alerted the complainant that appellant Raj Kumar had sexually assaulted female pupils at school. FIR was registered under Sections 354-A, 377, 376(2)F, 506, 202, and 119 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 4, 6, and 21(2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.
In addition, appellant Sardar Singh was charged under Section 21(2) of the POCSO Act and Section 202 of the Indian Penal Code.
11-year-old girl testified that Raj Kumar unzipped his pants, unzipped her salwar, and put his finger into her private area while threatening her not to expose the incident. Following that, they kissed. A 9-year-old said that the appellant pushed his penis into her mouth, as well as the mouths of seven or eight other schoolgirls, and kissed them. Additionally, he would expel white fluid from their mouths. The act was repeated seven to eight times.
Another 9-year-old girl stated that the appellant would invite her into the room when no one else was there and place his penis in her mouth. Prior to contacting the police, students reported that they had warned authorities about madam Savita’s actions. He then requested a student to massage his penis, but when she refused, he violently stroked his penis with her hands, and on one occasion, he brought the student to a freshly constructed house and forced her to drink the white discharge from his penis. All of the victims testified that the appellant, Raj Kumar, sexually abused them.
The High Court determined that the appellant Raj Kumar was guilty of both rape and sexual penetration.
The victims are underage girls who were effectively under the care of appellant Raj Kumar. The Appellant, Raj Kumar, taught the victims.
The appellant Sardar Singh, who was aware of Raj Kumar’s actions but did not disclose them, was also subject to punishment under Section 202 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 21(2) of the POCSO Act. Raj Kumar was correctly convicted and punished by the lower court.
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY – HARILAKSHMI