New Delhi, Sept. 12 -- A teacher may be guilty of poor judgement or inappropriate corporal punishment, but that alone cannot turn classroom discipline into a Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) offence, the Supreme Court has held while quashing criminal proceedings against a schoolteacher accused of beating two minor girls. A bench of justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Atul S Chandurkar made the observation while quashing the POCSO case against a West Bengal schoolteacher accused of beating two Class 10 girl students on their back and waist when they failed to answer questions in geography class. The apex court said the teacher could have handled the situation "in a much more sensitive manner", but the conduct alleged against him could not be treated as a sexual offence contemplated under Section 10 of the POCSO Act. "Inadequacy on the part of the appellant or resorting to corporal punishment would not attract Section 10 of the POCSO Act," the bench said in its September 8 order. The accused taught geography at a school in West Bengal's Alipurduar district. According to the court record, a group of women teachers informed the headmaster on June 24, 2025 that some Class 10 girls had complained of being physically touched by the teacher. A meeting was held the next day and the District Child Protection Unit was subsequently informed. Its representatives later visited the school. The counselling-cum-enquiry report recorded allegations that the male teacher beat the girls on their upper back when they were inattentive and, on another occasion, slapped them for not carrying their geography maps. The report also referred to him rubbing one girl's back and pinching her waist, while another allegation concerned his nails touching a girl's neck. Some other students reportedly said the teacher did not touch them but looked at them in a manner that made them uncomfortable. An FIR was eventually registered on July 23, 2025 under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, which deals with aggravated sexual assault. The provision is attracted where the offence of sexual assault is committed by, among others, a member of the staff of an educational institution. Sexual assault under Section 7 requires sexual intent accompanying physical contact. But statements of the two girls recorded by a magistrate under Section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) did not, the Supreme Court found, establish such an offence. One girl said the teacher used to beat her with his hand when she could not answer lessons and had hit her on the back and punched her waist. The bench said the teacher's conduct "may not be appropriate", particularly his resorting to corporal punishment and lack of sensitivity while dealing with girl students. However, a careful reading of their statements did not show that he had committed a sexual offence punishable under Section 10. The apex court also flagged the consequences of subjecting a teacher to a POCSO trial, saying such an allegation could effectively condemn him for his entire teaching career and beyond. Even an eventual acquittal, it said, would not adequately undo the damage caused by a criminal trial under the stringent law. The bench also found other aspects of the prosecution case questionable, including the delay in lodging the FIR and the manner in which the headmaster and women teachers initiated the criminal proceedings, noting that their statements were hearsay....