Aurangabad: In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court’s Aurangabad bench has quashed an FIR and related proceedings against a school principal and a medical practitioner in a case involving the alleged showing of a pornographic video to a Class 5 student by a school sweeper in Nandurbar district.
The bench, comprising Justices Vibha Kankanwadi and Sanjay A Deshmukh, ruled that “every failure to report an incident does not automatically attract criminal liability” under Section 21(2) of the POCSO Act, stressing that intention is a crucial factor.
Background of the Case
The case stems from an incident on August 27, 2023, where a minor girl alleged that a school sweeper lured her to the library and showed her “dirty videos” on his phone. The girl narrated the incident to her mother later in the day. Subsequently, the girl’s parents approached a teacher living nearby, who informed the principal.
An FIR was filed against the sweeper, and proceedings were initiated against the principal and a doctor, who is the secretary of the trust running the school, for allegedly failing to report the incident and trying to dissuade the parents from lodging a complaint.
The prosecution claimed the petitioners violated Section 21(2) of the POCSO Act, which penalises failure to report child sexual abuse by persons in authority.
Court’s Observations
However, the High Court found no mala fide intent on the part of the principal or the trust secretary. It noted that:
- The minor did not disclose the incident to any school staff during school hours, which meant the principal was not aware of the allegations in real-time.
- The girl first confided in her mother and a neighbour-teacher, which the court said is not unusual, especially given a child’s natural hesitance and need for emotional safety.
- There was no evidence that the school authorities tried to suppress the matter, especially since they were cooperative — the CCTV footage was preserved and offered to the parents.
On the point of the alleged attempt to dissuade the parents by warning them about potential defamation, the court said such remarks cannot be equated with threats. The court stated:
“It cannot be taken as a threat because the further statement is also important… When the principal is stated to have said that they have not deleted the CCTV footage, they have no intention to do the same.”
Final Verdict
In its verdict, the bench held:
“Unless the school authority would have ensured the element of truth in the allegations, there cannot be duty on the school authorities to lodge the report… Merely because the facts were not immediately informed, we cannot jump to the conclusion that there is intentional failure.”
The court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish any deliberate or intentional non-reporting, which is key to invoking liability under Section 21(2) of the POCSO Act.
Implications
The verdict provides clarity on the limits of liability for school authorities under POCSO in cases of delayed disclosure by children. It reinforces that legal culpability requires demonstrable intent to suppress or ignore child abuse allegations, and not every delay in action can be criminalised.
