Gauhati HC Upholds POCSO Conviction of Teacher Who Used Stethoscope as Pretext to Sexually Assault Minor Student

The Kohima Bench found that a government school teacher feigned a medical examination using a stethoscope to touch a minor girl's abdomen, breast, and private parts, satisfying Section 11(ii) of the POCSO Act.

The Gauhati High Court, Kohima Bench, on 20 July 2026 dismissed a criminal appeal filed by a government school teacher convicted of sexually assaulting a minor girl in Nagaland. Justice Pranjal Das, sitting singly, upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Judge (POCSO), Mon, under Section 354A(1)(i) of the IPC read with Section 12 of the POCSO Act. The court found that the appellant, a graduate science teacher at a Government Middle School in Chaoha Chingnyu, had called a Class VI aspirant to his residence in the evening on the pretext of school admission, then feigned a medical examination using a non-functional stethoscope to expose and touch the minor's body. The sentence of one year, one month, and three weeks—already served by the appellant—was confirmed without modification.

The Incident and the Prosecution Case

On 17 February 2022, the victim, a minor girl seeking admission to Class VI, was taken by her cousin brother Wanpang Konyak (PW3) to the residence of the appellant Om Prakash Sah in the evening. The appellant had specifically asked them to come in the evening. After collecting Rs 200 as part of an admission fee, the appellant told the accompanying brother that he needed to examine the girl for any disease ailments, which PW3 took to be a routine part of the admission process.

The victim (PW2) testified that the appellant directed her to lie on a bed and placed a stethoscope on his own ears. He then touched her abdomen and breast with his palm without using the stethoscope on her body. He proceeded to insert his fingers inside her clothing and into her vagina. He also applied an ointment on her abdomen. PW2 stated clearly that she was not suffering from any ailment and had not reported any health complaint to the appellant.

PW3 testified that the appellant had his back towards him during the examination and that after feeling uncomfortable, PW3 stepped out briefly to urinate. By the time he returned, the examination was over. On the way home, the victim said nothing to her cousin, feeling too ashamed. Only after reaching home, insisting on taking a bath despite the cold, and then shivering and crying, did she narrate the incident to her mother (PW1) when pressed repeatedly.

PW1, the mother and informant of the case, corroborated this sequence. She testified that upon hearing her daughter's account she called Wanpang, who then disclosed that the appellant had told him a medical examination was necessary. A Zero FIR was forwarded to Mon Women Police Station by the Officer-in-Charge of Aboi Police Station on 20 February 2022, and Mon Women P.S. Case No. 1 of 2022 was registered under Section 376B/354 IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Investigation followed, and a charge-sheet was ultimately filed under Section 354 IPC read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act.

Student leaders and community members from the village, who testified as PW4 through PW7, confirmed going to the appellant's residence shortly after the incident and recovering medicines, medical equipment including syringes, a blood pressure machine, a steel tray, and a stethoscope from his room. These items were handed over to the police.

The Medical Officer PW11 examined the victim on 20 February 2022 and found no physical injuries, including no injuries on the private parts, and her hymen was intact. PW12 examined the appellant and found only a bruise mark on his left temple. The Investigating Officer PW13 testified that the seized stethoscope was found to be non-functional, and that the appellant produced no document showing any medical qualification.

Conviction for a Charge Not Framed: The Central Legal Issue

The trial court had framed charges against the appellant under Section 354 IPC read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act. After trial, however, the Special Judge convicted him under Section 354A(1)(i) IPC read with Section 12 of the POCSO Act—provisions concerning sexual harassment—rather than the sections under which charges had been framed.

This formed the primary ground of appeal. The appellant's counsel argued that the foundational facts for the sections under which he was convicted had not been proved, that there was no intention or premeditation, that use of a stethoscope was not an illegal act, and that the trial court had convicted him on presumptions and for sections for which he was never charged.

The prosecution countered that the appellant, not being a medical practitioner, had no authority to use a stethoscope, and that the testimony of the victim and her cousin brother was consistent and cogent. The Amicus Curiae for the informant submitted that the sentencing itself reflected a lesser offence, that the cousin brother was not focused on the victim's body during the examination, and that the appellant had failed to discharge the presumption applicable under the POCSO Act.

Section 354A(1)(i) IPC makes physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures an offence of sexual harassment. Section 11 of the POCSO Act defines sexual harassment of a child, and Section 11(ii) specifically covers a situation where a person with sexual intent makes a child exhibit the child's body or any part thereof so that it is seen by that person. Section 12 of the POCSO Act prescribes punishment of up to three years' imprisonment and fine for sexual harassment of a child.

How Justice Pranjal Das Reasoned

Justice Das found the testimony of the victim (PW2) clear and cogent in examination-in-chief and completely unshaken in cross-examination. Her account was corroborated by her mother's testimony (PW1) and the broader circumstances deposed to by PW3.

The court addressed the argument that the victim and her brother came in the evening. It emerged plainly from PW3's testimony that the appellant himself had called them to his house in the evening for the admission purpose. The timing was not suspicious of the victim but was arranged by the appellant.

On the stethoscope, the court pointed to a critical admission in the appellant's own statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. In answer to question No. 3, the appellant stated he never used the stethoscope for checking the victim and that it was merely a study material in non-working condition. In answer to question No. 8, he denied touching the victim at all. Justice Das held that both denials were falsified by the clear testimony of PW2, supported by other prosecution evidence. The fact that the stethoscope was non-functional—confirmed by the IO in cross-examination and admitted by the appellant himself—only reinforced the finding that placing it on his ears was a pure pretext to give the appearance of a medical examination.

The court also noted that the IO had confirmed the appellant produced no document showing any medical qualification, and that PW2 herself had stated she was not suffering from any ailment and had told the appellant nothing about any health problem. Applying ointment on her abdomen in those circumstances was thus entirely unwarranted.

On the legal question of convicting under a provision different from the one charged, Justice Das examined the ingredients of Section 354A(1)(i) IPC and Section 11(ii) of the POCSO Act against the proved facts. He found that the act of making the minor victim expose her abdomen—which the appellant then proceeded to use as an opportunity to touch her breast, abdomen, and private parts—fell squarely within Section 11(ii) of the POCSO Act: the appellant with sexual intent made the child exhibit her body so that he could see and touch it. The subsequent acts of touching established the sexual intent with which the initial exposure was procured.

Justice Das acknowledged that the evidence on record actually established the ingredients of Section 354 IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act as well, noting that the trial court had overlooked this and had not convicted under those provisions. However, the prosecution had not appealed against that acquittal. The court therefore confined itself to upholding what the trial court had done—convicting under Section 354A(1)(i) IPC read with Section 12 of the POCSO Act—and found no infirmity in that conviction.

The decisions cited by the appellant's counsel—Main Pal v. State of Haryana, Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, Sangar Aboina Sreena v. State of Andhra Pradesh, and Shamnsaheb M. Multtani v. State of Karnataka—were each examined and held to be of no assistance. Main Pal concerned fair trial and prejudice to an accused in certain situations. Sangar Aboina Sreena related to alteration of charge and conviction for a minor offence, specifically holding Section 306 IPC not to be a minor offence to Section 302 IPC. Shamnsaheb M. Multtani discussed Section 222 Cr.P.C. on the test of a minor offence. Sujit Biswas addressed the principle of two views in cases based on circumstantial evidence. Justice Das held that none of these applied because the ingredients of Section 11(ii) of the POCSO Act were independently satisfied on the proved facts.

Sentence Confirmed Without Modification

The offence under Section 12 of the POCSO Act carries a maximum of three years' imprisonment. The trial court had sentenced the appellant to one year, one month, and three weeks. At the hearing before the High Court, it was submitted that the appellant had already undergone this sentence.

Justice Das declined to interfere with the sentence. He observed that the sentence was already on the lower end given the nature of the act committed upon a minor child who had gone to the appellant seeking school admission in a school where he was a teacher.

Outcome

The criminal appeal was dismissed. The judgment and order dated 11 April 2023 passed by the Special Judge (POCSO), Mon, Nagaland in G.R. Case No. 12 of 2022, arising out of Mon Women P.S. Case No. 1 of 2022, was upheld and confirmed. The original Trial Court Record was directed to be returned.