Kerala HC Upholds 20-Year Sentence Against Madrassa Teacher for POCSO Offences on Nine-Year-Old Student

The Kerala High Court dismissed an appeal by a madrassa teacher convicted of sexually assaulting a nine-year-old student, confirming sentences totalling 20 years under the POCSO Act and Section 377 IPC, and rejecting the defence that sectarian rivalry within the Muslim community had led to a false case.

Justice A. Badharudeen, sitting singly at the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam, on 12 June 2026 dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 421 of 2023, filed by the accused Rasheed against his conviction by the Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Kunnamkulam. The Special Court had, by its judgment dated 28 February 2023 in S.C. No. 262 of 2021, found Rasheed guilty of offences under Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, multiple provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. The High Court found no ground to interfere with either the conviction or the sentence, holding that the survivor's testimony was wholly reliable and that the sectarianism defence was unsupported by any convincing evidence.

The Incident and the Charges

The prosecution case arose from Crime No. 822 of 2020 registered at Pavaratty Police Station, Thrissur. The accused was the Usthad (teacher) at Noorul Hidaya Madrassa, Mullassery, and resided in a building adjacent to the madrassa owned by Sidhiquel Akbar Juma Masjid.

On 25 August 2020 at around 4.00 pm, the survivor — a nine-year-old boy studying in Class V at Vanivilasam School, Padoor, and also enrolled at the madrassa — went to the accused's room to clear doubts ahead of an online examination. The prosecution alleged that the accused seated the child on his lap, kissed him, pressed his stomach, inserted his hand through the child's Bermuda shorts and held his penis, and then committed an act of oral penetration. The child felt pain, pushed the accused away, and ran. The accused followed him and asked him not to tell anyone. The child disclosed the incident to his mother after the Magrib prayer that evening.

The accused was arrested on 26 August 2020. Charges were framed under Section 377 IPC, Sections 4(2) read with 3(d), 6(1) read with 5(f) and 5(m), 8 read with 7, 10 read with 9(o) and 9(m) of the POCSO Act, and Section 75 of the JJ Act.

The Trial Court's Findings and Sentences

The Special Court recorded evidence from twenty prosecution witnesses (PW1 to PW20), twenty-seven exhibits (Exts. P1 to P27), and three material objects (MOs 1 to 3). The accused examined himself as DW1 and marked Ext. D1. Court exhibits C1 and C2 were also marked.

On conviction, the Special Court imposed the following sentences, to run concurrently:

• Rigorous imprisonment of 10 years and a fine of Rs. 20,000 under Section 377 IPC (default: 6 months further RI).
• Rigorous imprisonment of 20 years and a fine of Rs. 20,000 under Section 5(f) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act (default: 6 months further RI).
• Rigorous imprisonment of 20 years and a fine of Rs. 20,000 under Section 5(m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act (default: 6 months further RI).
• Rigorous imprisonment of 7 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000 under Section 9(m) read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act (default: 3 months further RI).
• Rigorous imprisonment of 7 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000 under Section 9(o) read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act (default: 3 months further RI).
• Rigorous imprisonment of 3 years under Section 75 of the JJ Act.

The Special Court set off 19 days of pre-trial detention (26 August 2020 to 15 September 2020) under Section 428 Cr.P.C. It also directed that if the fine amounts were realised, Rs. 40,000 be paid to the survivor as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) Cr.P.C.

The Appellant's Contentions Before the High Court

Counsel for the appellant advanced two principal arguments. First, that the entire prosecution was a fabrication engineered by members of a rival sect within the Muslim community. The accused belonged to the Sunni sect; it was argued that Mustafa (CW8), the then-President of the Masjid committee, and a relative of the survivor named Abdul Azeez belonged to the Mujahid and Jama-Athe Islami sects respectively, and that sectarian animosity motivated the false complaint. The accused was terminated from his position as Usthad by a committee decision dated 27 August 2020, the day after his arrest.

Second, counsel contended that the Special Court erred in relying on the solitary testimony of PW1, arguing that the child's evidence was neither reliable nor trustworthy. Counsel cited the Supreme Court's decision in Pancchi v. State of UP, AIR 1998 SC 2726, for the proposition that child witness testimony must be evaluated with greater circumspection. Counsel also relied on Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2012) 8 SCC 21, to argue that PW1 did not qualify as a sterling witness.

An additional argument was raised that due to COVID-19 restrictions in force at the time, the accused could not have met PW1 on 25 August 2020. Ext. D1, a government order relating to COVID-19 restrictions, was marked through PW19 during cross-examination in support of this contention.

How the High Court Analysed the Evidence

Justice Badharudeen re-appreciated the evidence in detail before reaching his conclusions.

PW1's account was internally consistent. In examination-in-chief, he described the sequence of events at the accused's room. In cross-examination, he specifically deposed that the accused made him stand, then sat down himself and committed the act of oral penetration. He told the doctor that he felt pain in his penis. No material contradictions were extracted from PW1 during cross-examination, and the defence did not succeed in getting any contradictions formally recorded by reference to his First Information Statement (Ext. P1).

PW2, the survivor's mother, corroborated the surrounding circumstances. She testified that the accused had himself asked PW1 to visit him to clear doubts, that she sensed something was wrong when PW1 asked whether he needed to visit the Usthad again, and that PW1 then disclosed the incident. She denied the suggestion that COVID-19 restrictions had prevented any meeting between PW1 and the accused.

PW3, the Secretary of Sidhiquel Akbar Juma Masjid, confirmed the accused's appointment as Usthad in 2020 and identified him in the dock. He admitted that the accused belonged to the Sunni sect and that Mustafa (CW8) belonged to the Mujahid sect, but denied the suggestion that Mustafa and Abdul Azeez had fabricated the case.

The prosecution also placed on record: Ext. P8, the medical certificate of PW1 issued by PW8 on 26 August 2020 (no external injury; history of sexual assault recorded); Ext. P9, a potency certificate confirming the accused was capable of sexual acts; Ext. P14, tower location and call detail records for 25 and 26 August 2020 showing the mobile connection used by the accused was located at Mullassery on those dates; Ext. P21, the admission register extract confirming PW1 was a student at the madrassa; and Ext. P22, the FIR. MOs 1 and 2 were the Bermuda shorts and T-shirt worn by PW1 at the time; MO3 was the dhoti worn by the accused, identified by PW1.

The age of the survivor — 9 years, 11 months and 12 days on the date of the offence — was proved through the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW13, and PW16, as well as Exts. P22 and P18. The defence did not dispute the victim's juvenility.

On the sectarianism argument, the High Court found that no convincing evidence had been placed on record to establish even a remote connection between sectarian rivalry and the registration of the crime. The court rejected the contention that PW1 was not a sterling witness, holding that his evidence was wholly reliable and supported by the other evidence on record.

On the Question of Sentence

The appellant also sought a reduction in sentence. The High Court declined. Justice Badharudeen observed that the minimum punishment prescribed under Section 6(1) of the POCSO Act for offences under Sections 5(f) and 5(m) is imprisonment for a term not less than 20 years, which may extend to life imprisonment. Since the Special Court had imposed only the statutory minimum, there was no scope for reduction. The sentence was accordingly confirmed in its entirety.

Outcome

The High Court dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 421 of 2023. The conviction and sentence imposed by the Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Kunnamkulam, by its judgment dated 28 February 2023 in S.C. No. 262 of 2021, stand confirmed. The Registry was directed to forward a copy of the judgment to the jurisdictional court for information and compliance.