The central legal point established in the judgment is the competence of child witnesses, the unlikelihood of tutoring, and the importance of unimpeached testimonies in cases involving sexual offences against minors.

JUDGMENT

Anita Chaudhry, J. - Challenge has been laid here to the judgment of conviction dated 09.01.2015 and order dated 12.01.2015 vide which the appellant has been held guilty under Sections 10 and 12 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (for brevity, POCSO Act) and 354-C IPC. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, three years and one year respectively. A fine of Rs.1 lakh was imposed under Section 10 of the POCSO Act. In default whereof he was required to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant had been directed to pay Rs.3000/- and Rs.1000/- under Section 12 of the POCSO Act and Section 354-C IPC respectively, in default whereof further rigorous imprisonment for one month and seven days respectively was awarded. The appellant was also held guilty under Section 354-A IPC but no separate sentence under this head was awarded as sentence was already awarded under the graver offence under Section 12 of the POCSO Act. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The fine, if realized, was ordered to be paid to Victims A and B, as compensation.

2. It was a case where the appellant was serving as a Supervisor with the Children Home for Girls, Chandigarh. The (girl) inmates made complaints (Ex.PA & Ex.PB) against him on the child help line about sexual abuse. The complaints were forwarded to the Department of Social Welfare on 03.04.2014 vide letter Ex.PC. A Committee was constituted on the same date vide Ex.PD. The Committee after enquiry, vide report dated 16.04.2014 (Ex.PE) recommended action against the appellant for sexually exploiting the child inmates. The Wardens Meena Sharma and Manjeet Kaur were also held responsible for not taking timely action despite well versed with the overt acts of the appellant. The operative part thereof reads as under:-

"From the perusal of all the above statements the Committee was of unanimous opinion that the complaint made by the residents of Bal Niketan against Sh. Manish Kumar, Supervisor is genuine. He used to sexually harass the residents girls. Ms. Manjit Attendant has also stated in her statement that all the residents have told her about the misbehaviour of the Supervisor and she reported the same to Ms. Meena, Attendant as she is senior to her and took further no action which shows her insensitivity towards the residents and also consequently, shows gross negligence towards the performance of her duties by not reporting the incident to the Hony. Secretary. Thus, she along with Ms. Meena equally share the responsibility of this inhuman act and accordingly, deserve strict action to be taken against them. During the course of enquiry, Mr. Manish Kumar, Supervisor, also stated before the committee that he used to hug, touch the shoulder and pat the children like a father which clearly shows that he used to touch the residents intentionally. Ms. Amar Kulwant Singh has also stated before the committee that Supervisor was only allowed to enter the dormitories only at the time when the children/ residents has gone to their respective schools whereas the children/ residents and the attendants have stated that he used to come oftenly in the dormitories in their presence also. Thus, there is contradiction in the statements of Hony. Secretary, residents and attendants which shows that something wrong was happening in the Home."

3. On the basis of enquiry report, a complaint was made to the police. Consequently, FIR No. 187 dated 21.04.2014 under Sections 354, 354-A IPC and Sections 10 and 12 of the POCSO Act was registered at Police Station Sector 11 Chandigarh and investigated.

4. The girl inmates were joined and their statements were recorded. They reiterated that the accused used to do obscene acts with them and sexually misbehaved with the inmates and touched their private parts and hugged them as and when they went to him to take stationary etc. It was further alleged that he peeped into the room when they used