SANJEEV KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant through instant application is seeking stay of impugned judgment of conviction dtd. 16/7/2021 whereby applicant has been held guilty of commission of offence punishable under Ss. 8, 10 and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short 'POCSO') and Sec. 354 and 506 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC').

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant, inter alia contends that applicant in the year 2006 was selected as Post Graduate Teacher (English). On account of instructions from the State of Haryana, the result of students was very important for every teacher. The applicant started taking stern steps against students who were not performing well in English. The prosecutrix was one of those students. The prosecutrix during the course of her cross-examination has miserably demolished the case of the prosecution. The Investigation Officers (PW-11 and PW-12) have not supported the case of the prosecution still applicant has been convicted. The career of the applicant is at stake. He, at any point of time, may be terminated on account of impugned judgment of conviction. He has unblemished record of 11 years.

(3.) In support of his contention, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon a Three Judge Bench judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rama Narang Versus Ramesh Narang and Others; 1995 (2) SCC 513.