OMKAR PRASAD VERMA versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 670 · Decided: 08-03-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
A 
OMKAR PRASAD VERMA 
t 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
" 
/ 
MARCH 8, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
Penal Code 1860--Section 376 B---Conviction under---Correctness of-
' 
Allegation that Government school teacher had sexual intercourse with 
c student putting her to fear-Held: Sexual intercourse did not take place 
within precincts of school but outside the school and as such not at a place 
where woman was in custody of the public servant-Thus, ingredients of the 
section not satisfied and section 376B not attracted. 
It is alleged that the appellant-government school teacher had sexual 
D intercourse with a student putting her to fear that she would fail in exams. 
FIR was lodged. The student became pregnant Appellant took her for abortion. 
Trial court held that as the prosecutrix was a consenting party and was found 
)-"--· 
to be of more than 18 years, teacher was not guilty of offence of rape. However, 
since appellant was a government school teacher and prosecutrix being 
E 
student, was in his custody, he was held guilty of offence under section 
376 B, IPC. Aggrieved, appellant filed appeal which was dismissed. Hence 
the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
F 
HELD: 1.1. While construing a penal provision, the rule of strict 
interpretation shall be adhered to. Consent of a girl, therefore, although would 
... 
not take the offence outside the purview of Section 376(2) IPC, but therefor 
other ingredients thereof must be found to be existing. [Paras 9 and 10) 
[674-E-F) 
G 
1.2. It is assumed that the appellant being a teacher of the government 
school was a public servant. But all the students of the school, only thereby, 
were not in the custody of the appellant. The expression "custody" implies 
.. 
...... 
guardianship. A custody must be a lawful custody. The same may arise within 
the provisions of the statute or actual custody conferred by reason of an order 
of a court of law or otherwise. [Para 11) [674-F-G) 
H 
670 
OM KAR PRASAD VERMA 1· STATtOF MADHYA PRADESH IS B SINHA. J J 
671 
P. Ramanatha Aiyur's Advanced law lexicon, p 1170, referred to . 
A 
.)J 
1.3. When these two ingredients arc satisfied, the third ingredient, 
therefore, would be as to whether the public servant has taken advantage of 
his official position. If a student and a teacher fall in love with each other, the 
same would not mean that the teacher has taken undue advantage of his official 
position. Even then, there must be an inducement or seduction by a public B 
servant so far as the woman in his custody is concerned. Therefore, sexual 
·intercourse for the purpose of attracting Section 3768 of IPC must take place 
{ 
at a place where the woman was in custody. In this case, the prosecutrix 
) 
categorically admitted that the same did not take place within the precincts 
of the school but outside the school. Therefore, the ingredients of the offence c 
under Sec. 3768 of IPC are not satisfied in the instant case. 
!Paras 13, 14 and 1511675-8-D] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Cri.ninal Appeal No. 293 of 
2007. 
D 
From the Judgment and Order dated 6.10.2006 of the High Court of 
Judicature Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. Nos. 2386/ 
1999. 
Pramod Swarup, Amit Singh, Pareena Swarup and Bharat Ram for the 
Appellant. 
E 
Vibha Datta Makhija for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S.8. SINHA, J. I. Leave granted. 
F 
.~ 
2. Appellant is a teacher in a government school. Vimala was a student 
• 
reading in the said school. She alleged that the appellant had sexual intercourse 
with her on putting her to fear that she would be failed in her classes. In fact, 
she was studying in class VII for three years. A First Information Report was 
lodged. She became pregnant. Appellant took her to a hospital at Satna where G 
an abortion took place. In the meantime a missing diary was recorded on 
1.02.1997. On 11.02.1997, the prosecutrix he1self came back and gave a statement 
.. 
t-
before the Investigating Officer. She alleged that at the relevant time she was 
only 13 112 years old. 
3. The said allegations were not found to be correct in the trial. A H 
672 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 3 S.C.R. 
A finding of fact was arrived at by the learned Trial Judge that she was a 
consenting party. She was found to be more than 18 years of age. On the 
basis of the said findings, it was categorically held that the accused was not 
guilty of the offence of commission

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.