Thane POCSO Court Orders Further Investigation Into Digital Evidence Against Tutor Accused Of Sexually Harassing 2 Girl Students
Thane: A special court in Thane hearing a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act case has directed the investigating officer (IO) to conduct further investigation to retrieve digital evidence in a case involving a tutor accused of sexually harassing two female students.
The complainant in her complaint had alleged that critical aspects of the investigation were overlooked by the police, including failure to obtain CCTV footage, omission of crucial witness statements, and not taking action against a person who was reportedly informed of the incident but failed to report it.
According to the complainant, Suraj Yadav, who was informed about the alleged harassment, should have been made a co-accused under Sections 19 and 21 of the POCSO Act for not informing the police.
It was further alleged that the investigating officer failed to record statements of two students who were identified as key witnesses, and that no separate charge sheet had been filed in the case of the second victim, who also accused the tutor of stalking and harassment via Instagram.
The complainant also questioned the authenticity of a partnership deed submitted by the accused, calling it a forged and fabricated document created as an afterthought.
In response, the investigating officer argued that Suraj Yadav had no personal knowledge of the incident and therefore could not be held liable under POCSO provisions.
The IO further maintained that the mobile chats had already been seized and showed no tampering, and that CCTV footage from outside the premises had yielded no useful information. The IO claimed that there were no cameras installed inside the classes, contrary to the complainant’s claims of 48 cameras on site.
After hearing both sides, the court noted that the incident took place within a tuition class where the accused worked as a teacher and directed the IO to collect all digital evidence from the location and surrounding areas.
The court stated that if any material evidence surfaces implicating Suraj Yadav, the complainant is free to file an application under Section 358 of the BNSS. The court also clarified that under Section 348 of the BNSS, the complainant can summon material witnesses directly during trial and that this aspect does not necessitate further investigation.
Accordingly, the application was partly allowed, and the IO has been instructed to gather and submit digital evidence pertaining to the incident.
As per the prosecution's case the tutor Nitin Saxena , is accused of using threats to compel a juvenile to send photographs of a 14-year-old victim to his phone, subsequently harassing her. Further, it is alleged that he detained the victim late at night in the tuition class, and allegedly sexually assaulted her.
Separately, the tutor is alleged to have repeatedly proposed to a 16-year-old girl from the same tuition class on Instagram, and on Guru Pournima, and made her uncomfortable by allegedly hugging her, outraging her modesty.
news