Observing that sexual assault on minor children by teachers is "dreadful" and that failure to report such offences leads to their repetition, the Karnataka High Court (HC) dismissed the petition filed by a founder-trustee of a madrasa in Bengaluru. He was questioning the rejection of his application seeking discharge from a case in which a chargesheet had been filed against him for not reporting alleged unnatural sexual assault on an 11-year-old boy by two teachers to the Special Juvenile Police Unit or local police, stated a report by The New Indian Express.
"It is in public domain that several heinous offences committed under the POCSO Act go unnoticed due to lack of information, as they are suppressed," Justice M Nagaprasanna said, adding that non-reporting snowballs into a serious offence while rejecting the petition filed by Mohammed Aamir Raza, accused No 4.
The court noted that the child narrated that he did inform the petitioner and others but was shunned, saying they had other work. It indicates that the petitioner had failed to report the offence, which would undoubtedly attract punishment under Section 21 of the Act, albeit prima facie. The allegations against the teachers are so horrendous and heinous that the petitioner ought to have reported it the moment he learned of it, the court observed.
According to the prosecution, the boy was studying at the madrasa. Between June 2023 and September 29, 2023, when the boy was asleep on the second floor of the madrasa, two teachers (accused No. 1 and 2) entered the room, dragged him into a corner, and subjected him to unnatural sex. This went on for several days.
When the boy resisted returning to the madrasa, his father questioned him and learnt what had happened. The father filed a complaint, and police charged the four accused, including the petitioner, under Sections 17 and 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.
The petitioner's counsel contended that the acts done by the teachers were unpardonable, but accused 3 and 4, who are founder-trustees, were dragged into the web of the crime for failing to inform the authorities. The government advocate contended that the petitioner was aware of the incidents, but he did not inform the police, which led to the boy being harassed repeatedly by the teachers, according to the report by The New Indian Express.
