SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Bom) 396

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.M. BADAR, J.
AMOL MARUTI SHERKAR - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 900 of 2015
Decided on : 25-01-2019

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
B.A. Aloor, Adv., S.V. Gavand, Adv.

Headnote:

POCSO Act - Section 7, 19 and Section 21 - Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 354 and 376(2)(i) - challenging judgment – Appeal against Conviction - This is one more case of sexual molestation of a very young female child noticed by this court- Parents of tiny tots entrust them with utmost confidence to conductor and driver of school bus for reaching them and bringing them back from school - They feel that their children are in safe hands particularly when school bus belongs to so called reputed educational institute like Institute and drivers as well as conductors/attendants of such school bus are direct employees of such educational institution - Case in hand reflects breach of trust reposed by parents of a toddler on conductor/attendant of school van who happened to be employee of so called reputed educational institute named Institute - Taking advantage of such entrustment of children to him it is seen that appellant/accused had repeatedly committed penetrative sexual assault on minor female victim/PW1 aged about 4 years who was taking education in Mini Kinder Garten (K-G- Class) of Springdale Pre- Primary School run by Institute by undertaking to and fro journey by school bus no-A7 provided by school – Held, By pointing out that incident as alleged is totally improbable defence has brought on record through cross- examination of PW2 that distance between her house and school can be traveled in ten minutes - There used to be students in bus by which victim female child was attending school - Evidence on record unerringly points out that appellant/accused no-1 had inserted his finger in vagina of victim female child/PW1 which has resulted in injury to vagina of victim female child/PW1 in nature of bruising as deposed - Prosecution as such has established commission of offences alleged against appellant/accused no-1 - light of foregoing discussion no infirmity can be found in impugned judgment and order of conviction as well as resultant sentence imposed on appellant/accused - Appeal is dismissed

JUDGMENT :

A.M. BADAR, J.

1. This is one more case of sexual molestation of a very young female child noticed by this court. Parents of the tiny tots entrust them with utmost confidence to the conductor and driver of the school bus for reaching them and bringing them back from the school. They feel that their children are in safe hands, particularly when the school bus belongs to so called reputed educational institute like Sinhgad Institute, Pune, and the drivers as well as the conductors/attendants of such school bus are direct employees of such educational institution. The case in hand reflects breach of the trust reposed by the parents of a toddler on conductor/attendant of the school van, who happened to be the employee of the so called reputed educational institute named Sinhgad Institute, Pune. Taking advantage of such entrustment of children to him, it is seen that the appellant/accused had repeatedly committed penetrative sexual assault on the minor female victim/PW1 aged about 4 years who was taking education in Mini Kinder Garten (K.G. Class) of the Sinhgad Springdale Pre- Primary School run by the Sinhgad Institute, by undertaking to and fro journey by school bus no.A7 provided by the school. The case in hand is also an example of sheer insensitivity in handling the complaint of sexual assault on the toddler taking education in the Pre-Primary school by none else than the Head Mistress of the Sinhgad Springdale Pre-Primary School (examined as PW4 before the learned trial court) who after hearing the complaint of sexual molestation of the PW1 - a four year old girl student by the employee of the school, instead of reporting the matter to police in view of the mandate of Section 19 of the POCSO Act and ignoring the penal consequences thereof as provided by Section 21 of the said Act, had advised her parents to first get the medical examination of the victim female child done from the gynecologist. It is seen that the Head Mistress had chosen to file the First Information Report (FIR) only when parents of the victim agitated, when mob of citizens damaged the property of the school due to inaction of the school authorities in the matter and manhandled the Head of the Institute. It was expected of the Head Mistress of the school to keep in mind that the mental and psychological trauma of such sexual assault troubles the minor female child throughout her life resulting in depression, anxiety and post traumatic stress disorder. Sex abuse of a toddler is a peculiar sinister type of trauma because of the shame it instills in the victim, which lasts throughout the life. With this prelude, let us now go to the facts of the instant appeal.

2. By this appeal, the appellant/accused no.1, who was serving as School Bus Attendant with Sinhgad Springdale Pre-Primary School, Pune, is challenging the judgment and order dated 27th March 2015 passed by the learned Special Judge under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as POCSO Act for the sake of brevity), Pune, in Special (Child) Sessions Case No.158 of 2014 thereby convicting him of offences punishable under Sections 354 and 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, under Sections 3(m) read with Section 6 and under Section 7 read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act. For the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant/accused no.1 is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years apart from a direction to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. For the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant/ accused no.1 is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years apart from a direction to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. For the offence punishable under Section 5(m) read with 6 of the POCSO Act, the appellant/accused no.1 is sentenced to suffer rigorous impriso



































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top