Last Updated on January 8, 2024 by News Desk
Issue:- The ruling has come up after a criminal revision petition that was directed on behalf of the petitioner was made against the order passed by a special POCSO court, that rejected the discharging application of the petitioner-accused.
Facts:- The father of the girl gave a written statement that his 15-year-old daughter was missing. It was alleged that the teacher of the school had cast an evil eye on her. A complaint was also made to the school after which the teacher was removed. However, when the girl was missing, it was alleged that the girl was kidnapped.
Analysis:- The HC had observed that it is a settled law that while the framing charge, it has to be taken into consideration, the allegation that has been made in the FIR and the evidence that has been collected by the IO during the investigation, if from them, there are sufficient grounds to proceed.
It has been held by the Jharkhand HC that engaging in persistent acts, following, watching, or even contacting a child with a sexual intention falls under section 11(4) of the POCSO Act.
Therefore, as per the allegations that have been mentioned in the FIR and the statement of the witness that has been recorded under section 161 of the crpc, there is ample evidence against the petitioner concerning the sexual harassment caused to the victim.
Judgment:- The criminal revision petition was dismissed by the court and the impugned order was upheld.
Written By:- Shianjany Pradhan (@SHIANJANYPRADHAN)
