Delhi District Court
Parents' Forum For Meaningful ... vs Mr. P.C. Gupta on 19 March, 2007
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDRA KUMAR : MM : DELHI.
Case No. 5023/06
In Re :
Sh Rakesh Kumar,
S/o. Mr. Sone Pal,
R/o. A-466, Sangam Park,
Rana Pratap Bagh,
Delhi -110 009.
Through
Parents' Forum for Meaningful Education
B-11, Virat Bhawan, Mukherjee Nagar,
Commercial Complex, Delhi. .....Complainant.
Versus
1.Mr. P.C. Gupta Vice Principal Govt. Boys Sr. Sec. School, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi.
2. Mr. Dhiyan Singh, Principal Govt. Boys Sr. Sec. School, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi. ......Accused.
P.S. Model Town Criminal Complaint Under Section 350 Read with Section 352, 355, 503 Read with Section 506, 323, 192 Read with Section 193.
Judgment :
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose off a complaint U/S. 323/352/355/34 IPC filed by the complainant against the accused persons.
2. The complainant has alleged that on 25.09.1997 at Govt.
Boys Senior Secondary School, Rana Pratap Bagh, the accused 2 persons being the principal and vice principal in furtherance of common intention assaulted or used criminal force with intention to dishonour the complainant Rakesh and forced him to walk naked before the other school boys. It is further alleged that the accused did not allow him to wear the clothes and gave him beatings before other students and before his parents and also did not allow the complainant to cover his face and caused physical and psychological pain. It is further alleged that in furtherance of common intention, they both criminally intimidated the complainant and his family members. With these allegations, the present criminal complaint has been filed against the accused.
3. The Court examined the complainant's witnesses in pre- summoning evidence and pre-charge evidence and thereafter, charges U/S. 323/352/355/506/34 IPC were framed against the accused persons and they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
4. I have heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the record. This Court has framed charges U/S. 323/355/506/34 IPC against both the accused and notice U/S. 352 IPC against the accused no.1. Before giving my findings on the charges framed against the accused persons, I am discussing the defences taken by the accused persons during the course of trial. The accused persons are public servants being Principal and Vice Principal of the school Govt. Boys Senior Secondary School, Rana Pratap Bagh, Model Town, Delhi and they have taken a specific defence that there prosecution is barred U/S. 197 Cr.P.C. During the course of arguments, it is submitted by the Ld. defence counsel for the accused that they are/ were the public servants at the time of alleged incident and as per Section 197 Cr.P.C, a mandatory sanction of the Govt. is necessary before taking the cognizance of the offence by the Court, otherwise, cognizance is barred. It is 3 further submitted that the accused were holding public offices on the date of alleged incident and offences have been allegedly committed while acting or purporting to act in discharge of their official duties, but the complainant has not taken any sanction from the Govt. to prosecute the accused persons, due to the cognizance taken by this Court is void and the accused are liable to be acquitted on this ground alone.
On the other hand, the Ld. Counsel for the complainant has opposed the submissions of the Ld. defence counsel and has submitted that the sanction U/S. 197 Cr.P.C is not required in this case, as the offences committed by both accused are not covered within their official duties and the accused have acted beyond the scope of official duties and the protection of Section 197 Cr.P.C is not available for the acts committed beyond the scope of official duties.
I have gone through the legal proposition with regard to the sanction U/S. 197 Cr.P.C. As per Section 197 Cr.P.C, a protection against the vexatious prosecution has been provided to the public servants for the acts done in official capacity and no prosecution may be launched against the public servant without the prior sanction of the Govt. otherwise, cognizance is barred. But the main point of consideration is what actions of public servants may be covered under the umbrella of Section 197 Cr.P.C. The test has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in (1973) 2 SCC 701 Pukhraj V. State of Rajasthan & Anr. in which, it has been held that :
''the intention behind Section 197, Cr.P.C is to prevent public servants from being unnecessarily harassed. The section is not restricted only to cases of anything purported to be done in good faith, for a person who 4 ostensibly acts in execution of his duty still purports so to act, although he may have a dishonest intention. Nor is it confined to cases where the act, which constitutes the offence, is the official duty of the official concerned. Such an interpretation would involve a contradiction in terms, because an offence can never be an official duty. The offence should have been committed when an act is done in the execution of duty or when an act purports to be done in the execution of duty.'' Another judgment is Gauri Shanker Prasad V. State of Bihar 2000 SCC ( Cri. ) 872 in which it has been held that :
''In order to determine whether in a particular case, a public servant is entitled to the protection of Section 197 Cr.P.C all that has to be considered is whether the act complained of against public servant which is alleged to constitute the offence was committed by him while discharging his official duty and that such act had a reasonable connection with his official duty. It is not material whether in discharging such official duty, the public servant acted somewhat in excess of his limits. One safe and sure test for determining whether there was reasonable connection between the act complained of and the official duty of the public servant would be to consider if the omission or negligent on the part of the public servant to connect the act complained of could have made him answerable for the charge of dereliction of duty. If the answer to this question is in affirmative, it may be said that such act was committed by the public servant while acting in the discharge of his official duty''. In view of these judgments, it is clear that the sanction of 5 Section 197 Cr.P.C is required, if the act done by the public servant is within the ambit of his official duties and he should pass the test laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the abovesaid judgment and it is clear that an offence never be an official duty.
In the present case, the accused have allegedly assaulted the complainant publically and the accused no.1 hit him with the kick and fists blows and even canned him publically and paraded him naked and even threatened to rusticate him from the school in case of any opposition by the complainant as well as his family members. The acts of the accused persons were to humiliate the complainant and to punish him publically for slight act of bathing in water tank and the same cannot be their official duty.
Even otherwise, the corporal punishment provided under Rule 37 of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973 has already been declared null and void by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide CWP No. 196/1998 in the matter titled ''Parents Forum of Meaningful Education V. Union of India & Ors.'' and after strucking down the abovesaid provisions by the Court, the corporal punishment becomes an offence and it is no more a defence to the accused persons to hit the complainant badly for his slight faults. The conduct of the accused persons and the offences committed by them do not cover within the ambit of their official duties, due to the protection of Section 197 Cr.P.C shall not be available to them and the cognizance taken by the Court is not barred in this case in any manner.
The accused has also taken another defence that the punishing of kids in good faith is not an offence as per Section 89 & 95 IPC. It is further submitted that the Hon'ble High Court of Karnatka has expressed similar views on this point. The defence taken by the accused persons is further not a valid defence, as U/S. 89 IPC, the 6 act done in the good faith for the benefit of child under 12 years of age with the express or implied consent of the guardian, is not an offence. As per this Section, the defence is only available if the act is done in good faith and against the child under 12 years of age, but in the present case, the complainant is aged about 13 years and the accused have not done anything in the good faith of the child and even they have failed to explain what benefit of child was involved in this case, while they committed the offences, for which this Court has taken cognizance against the accused. Even they were never contented for their acts by the parents of the complainant. Like it, section 95 IPC is also not attracted in this case because the acts done by the accused are not so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm.
The beating of the complainant by the accused with kicks and fist blows as well as stick and parading him in naked condition and to insult him in the presence of other students is not of such act which may harm the complainant so slightly that an ordinary person would not complain of such harm. The defence taken by accused persons is not sustainable at all in the eyes of law and common sense as well. Even otherwise, the defences are available upto some extent, but in this case, the accused have crossed their all limits due to defences are not available to them.
The accused have taken another defence that the entire proceedings of the case are illegal, as the case has been filed by the complainant through Parents Forum for Meaningful Education through its President Mrs. Kusum and no copy of aim and objects of the society has been filed on record and the complainant being minor aged about 13 years was not authorized to allow the forum to represent him before the Court and authority letter signed by him is illegal. It is further submitted that all the proceedings carried out by 7 the advocate on the basis of power of attorney signed by the complainant are also illegal.
I have gone through the legal proposition in this regard. Though, it is a matter of fact that the complaint has been filed by the complainant through Parents Forum for Meaningful Education, which is a registered society being represented through Mrs. Kusum Jain yet the legal proposition in this regard is necessary to be considered for the proper adjudication of the objection. As per Section 200 which is specifically relevant to the complaint cases, Magistrate shall take cognizance of the offence after examination of complainant and witnesses on oath and the same shall be reduced in writing and shall be signed by the complainant as well as witnesses and as per Section 190 of Cr.P.C ''the cognizance of offence may be taken upon information received from any person other than a police officer or upon his own knowledge, that such offence is committed.'' By the joint reading of the Sections and proviso of Section 200 Cr.P.C., it is clear that even the written complaint is not required in the complaint case to take cognizance by Magistrate and if the complainant and witnesses have been examined by the Magistrate on oath, the magistrate may take the cognizance of the offence. As such, there is no bar in the Cr.P.C to take cognizance on the basis of information received from a minor child, who is competent witness as per Section 118 of Evidence Act. In this case, the complainant as well as all the witnesses have been examined by this Court on oath before taking the cognizance of the offence and after considering all the pre-summoning evidence, only then the accused have been summoned. In the present case, the requirement of Section 200 have already been met with. Even otherwise, it is a settled law that the purpose of justice should not be defeated on the ground of technicalities. In the present case, all 8 the proceedings have been carried out by the Court as per law and the objection taken by the accused cannot be entertained.
Besides the abovesaid defences, no other specific defence has been taken by the accused persons. In view of the abovesaid findings on the defences taken by the accused persons, I am of the considered opinion that the complaint filed by the complainant is maintainable in all respect.
Now, it is to be seen whether the complainant has proved his case against the accused persons beyond reasonable doubts under the provisions, in which charges have been framed against the accused by this Court.
5. To prove the allegations U/S. 323/352/355/506/34 IPC, the complainant has examined himself as PW1. PW1 has deposed that on 25.09.1997, he went to school, but PET teacher did not allow him to enter into the school, as he was not wearing proper uniform and he was made stand outside the school building, but within school compound as punishment. It is further deposed that after sometimes some students of the school came outside the school premises and went to water tank and they started bathing in the tank and he also joined them. It is further deposed that after sometime Vice Principal, who is the accused no.1, came there and the complainant was caught by him, as the other children run away. It is further deposed that the Vice Principal made threatening gestures and by saying ''Saale bahar aao main abhi tumhe batata hun''. It is further deposed that the vice principal started beating him and he was naked and he kept on requesting him to allow to wear the clothes, but he did not allow. It is further deposed that he was dragged by vice principal by his arm and was taken to his office in the naked condition while beating and he was made to stand in the corner of the office and 9 till then he was naked. It is further deposed that the vice principal called the chowkidar and directed him to call his parents and his mother and father came there in the office and the complainant again was rebuked in the presence of his mother and father by saying ''ye bhungi ke bache hain kya padhenge, ise school se nikal do ''. It is further deposed that the brother of the complainant offered clothes to wear him, but the vice principal snatched the clothes and throw on the almirah and he was not allowed to wear the clothes. It is further deposed that the vice principal told his parents to leave the school as he will sort out the things. After sometime, during the half time of the school, the students gathered in the ground and the vice principal took him in front of those students and gave him beating in front of the school boys and even was not allowed to cover his face as he was beaten up with stick on hands. It is further deposed when all the school boys went away, then clothes were given by PET teacher and then he went to his house. It is further deposed that on 29.09.1997, when he again went to school, then vice principal called him in the office and got certain documents signed forcibly.
6. During the cross examination, the PW1 has deposed that 15 children were bathing in the water tank and all were taking bath naked. It is further deposed that all the children taking bath put their clothes outside the water tank at different places and the clothes were not handed over by the boys to their friends. It is further deposed that they suddenly saw the vice principal and children run away with clothes and when the vice principal reached there, he was inside the water tank. It is further deposed that vice principal caught hold his arm and in naked condition and he was taken to his office while being beaten with wooden stick and the body parts where stick beating was given were swollen badly. It is 10 further deposed that he reached home and he was taken to doctor by his parents. It is further deposed that he was slapped by the vice principal in the presence of his parents. It is further deposed that he made the complaint before the police which is Ex.CW1/B2 and it bears his signature. It is further deposed that the vice principal had told his parents that the complainant will be taken to police or he should be removed from school by them. It is further deposed that his clothes were thrown out by the vice principal over almirah. PW1 has denied all the suggestions put to him.
The testimony of PW1 has been corroborated by the other PWs Sohan Pal, the father of the complainant, mother of the complainant Smt. Guddi, Sonu brother of the complainant and Amit Kishore. PW Sohan Pal has also deposed that he was called by the vice principal through chowkidar of the school and he went to school alongwith wife and elder son. It is further deposed that his son was beaten up by the vice principal in his presence and he was not allowed to wear the clothes and his clothes were thrown over the almirah by the vice principal. The PW6 Amit Kishore has deposed that he is the class mate of the complainant and in recess time, he saw that the complainant was being brought by the accused P.C. Gupta in naked condition and he was also being beaten by kicks and fists. It is further deposed that in the open ground he was made to sit in the ''cock position'' and he was seeking apology, but the accused kept on thrashing me. It is further deposed that he covered his face with hands, but accused beat him with stick so that to uncovered his face and they all were asked to call him ''shame shame'' and even the accused scolded him and intimidated that he will be punished for the incident. The PW has specifically denied the suggestions that the complainant was never beaten up by the accused and he was never taken to the office of 11 the accused in naked condition. Besides it, the DW1 Sh. Dev Raj has also confirmed that the complainant was brought by the accused no.1 to his room and his parents were called and he was in naked condition. Though the DW is the librarian of the school and was supposed to sit over the liabrary, but he has claimed to be present at the spot. DW2 has also deposed that he verified the address of the complainant from the record and communicated to the accused, who were present in the office and the complainant was standing in naked condition. The DW3 Daryao Singh has also admitted the suggestion put to him that ''when I said that P.C. Gupta caught the boy, I did not speak the correct fact actually PET, whose job to catch the children at the direction of the principal had caught Rakesh.'' It is further deposed that it was only complainant, who was caught by Sh. P.C. Gupta. Besides it, the DW4 who is the accused no.1 has examined himself as defence witness. He has proved that on the date of incident, the PET caught hold the hand of the complainant and took him as he was found bathing inside the tank and he was astonished to see the boy in totally naked condition. It is further deposed that he was brought by him alongwith PET to his office and to make him stand near almirah. The DW4 has contradicted his statement given to the police which is Ex.DW1/D1, but he has admitted his signature on the document. During the cross examination, DW4 has admitted ''it is correct to suggest that I was not the principal of the school and therefore had no locus to inflict any corporal punishment to student''. The suggestion itself is self explanatory that the corporal punishment was inflicted upon the student i.e. complainant by him.
Besides the abovesaid witnesses, the statement of the accused recorded by the Court are also relevant. The accused P.C. Gupta has admitted in his statement of accused U/S. 313 Cr.P.C 12 that the complainant is the student of the school, in which he is vice principal, but he has shown his ignorance that the complainant reached the school at 1:00 p.m and he was not allowed to enter in the school on the ground that he was not wearing prescribed uniform. The accused has denied the allegations that the accused was dragged in naked condition by his arms and beatings were given to him with sticks. The accused has admitted that he has not done anything against the rule and regulations and whatever has been done it has been done in the larger interest of students. On the other hand, the co-accused Dhyan Singh has admitted that the vice principal P.C. Gupta brought the complainant in naked condition in his presence and he has further admitted that he joined the school as principal on 22nd September, 1997 and whatever incident had taken place, it was occurred between P.C. Gupta and complainant in his room and compound of the school.
After going through the entire material available on record and the legal proposition in this regard, it is clear that the complainant has substantial evidence on record to prove the allegations/ charges levelled against the accused persons. The first charge has been framed against both accused U/S. 323/34 IPC. The definition of hurt is relevant to adjudicate the charges U/S. 323/34 IPC. The hurt has been defined under the following provisions.
Section 319 Hurt - ''whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt''.
Section 321 voluntarily causing hurt - ''whoever does any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to any person and does thereby hurt to any person is said voluntarily to cause hurt''.
13As per the joint reading of both the sections, it is clear that ''just bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person by any act with intention or knowledge is sufficient to bring the offence U/S. 323 IPC to home. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has defined Section 323 IPC in A.B. Subharao & State of A.P. 1997 SCC ( CRI 710 ), ''dragging a person for whatever hurt it may caused is an offence punishable U/S. 323 IPC''. Further in Kedar Prasad & State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1992 SC 1629, it has been held by the Hon'ble Court that ''the simple blows are covered U/S. 323 IPC''.
In the present case, the complainant, PW1 has already deposed that he was dragged by his arm and beaten up by the accused P.C. Gupta in the presence of other students during recess period and PW Sohan Pal, PW Guddi and PW Sonu have also proved that the complainant was beaten up by the accused P.C. Gupta in their presence. Independent witness PW6 Amit Kishore has also deposed that the complainant was brought by the accused in naked condition and he was also beaten up by fists and kicks and even he was not allowed to cover up his face with the hands and when he tried to do so, the accused hit him with the stick on the hands. It is further deposed that the complainant was made to sit in the cock position in the open ground and was thrashed on seeking apology. The PW has further proved that the bodily parts where stick beating was given was swollen badly and he was to taken to doctor. The complainant has sufficient evidence on record that he suffered bodily pain, due to the acts of the accused no.1. The accused have also admitted the incident, as the accused Sh. P.C. Gupta has admitted that whatever he has done that has been done as per rules and regulations and in the larger interest of the student. Accused no.2 Dhyan Singh has also admitted that the incident had taken place in his room between the complainant and 14 the accused no.1. The statement of the DW's as well as testimonies of PW's, make it clear that the accused Sh. P.C. Gupta has committed the offence U/S. 323 IPC, as the complainant suffered bodily pain and it was caused by accused no.1 voluntarily and knowingly and the accused no.1 is liable for the offence U/S. 323 IPC.
So far the accused no.2 is concerned, no specific evidence has come out on record against the accused and even during the statement of PW1, a specific Court question was put to the complainant about the role of the principal in the incident, but the complainant has denied the role of the principal. Even otherwise, there are no such allegations in the statement of the PW's that he hit the complainant.
The other charges have been framed against the accused U/S. 352/355/34 IPC. Both the charges are being decided together being interrelated. The definition of force and assault is relevant to decide these charges. The definition of Criminal Force & Assault has been given under Section 350 IPC & Section 351 IPC.
Section 350 IPC ''whoever intentionally use force to any person without that persons consent in order to committing of any offence or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force, he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other''.
Section 351 IPC Assault - ''whoever makes any gesture or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person is said to commit an offence''.
Explanation : Mere words do not amount to an assault.
15But the words which a person uses may give to his gesture or preparation such a meaning as may make those gestures or preparations amount to an assault.
After the joint reading of both provisions, it is clear that any intentional force against a person without his consent with intention or knowledge to cause injury or fear or annoyance while preparation or gesture is sufficient to bring the offences U/S. 352 & 355 IPC to home. To prove the offence U/S. 352 IPC, the complainant is required to prove assault or criminal force, otherwise then, on grave and sudden provocation by the complainant. And, to prove the offence U/S. 355 IPC, the complainant is required to prove that the assault or criminal force was used with intention to dishonour that person, otherwise then on grave and sudden provocation given by that person.
7. In the present case, the accused no.1 has used absurd language against the complainant and the complainant was paraded naked and assaulted with fists, kicks and stick and the same was done without any grave and sudden provocation. As such, the complainant who was just aged about 13 years was not in position to resist the acts of the accused no.1. The PW1 in his statement has proved that the accused rebuked him in the presence of his parents in the absurd language ''ye bhungi ke bachhe hain, kya padhenge, ise school se nikal do'' and PW6 has also proved that the complainant was paraded naked and the students were called ''shame shame'' to the complainant. In view of the evidence of the PW's, it is clear that the accused P.C. Gupta intentionally or knowingly used force to cause injury and created fear and annoyance in the mind of the complainant and he was assaulted by gestures and preparation and even the complainant was dishonoured as well as insulted in the open school in the presence of 16 other students. The contents of Section 352 & 355 IPC are altogether fulfilled in this case as well. The accused P.C. Gupta is further liable for the offences U/S. 352 & Section 355 IPC, but no evidence is found on merits against accused Dhyan Singh.
The next charge against the accused persons is U/S. 506/34 IPC. To bring the offence to home U/S. 506 IPC, the definition of criminal intimidation given U/S. 503 IPC is relevant. As per Section 503 IPC, ''whoever threatens any person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of anyone that person is interested with intention to cause alarm to that person or to cause that person to do any act, which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threats commits criminal intimidation.'' For the offence of criminal intimidation, threat to the person, reputation or property is sufficient. In the present case, it has been brought on record in the evidence of the PWs Rakesh, Guddi, Sohan Pal and Sonu that the complainant was threatened that he will be rusticated and he will not be retained in the school any more and he will not be allowed to study in the school. It is further threatened by the accused no.1 that he will report the matter to the police otherwise, they should stop the complainant to come to the school. Even the complainant and his family members were threatened to face consequences in case, they did not hush up the matter. In view of the statement of the PW's, it is clear that the accused no.1 not only intimidated the complainant and his parents about the spoil of their reputation as well as the study of the complainant which is not less than a valuable property to the poor complainant as well as parents.
In view of the testimony of PW2 & PW3 as well as complainant, the offence U/S. 506 IPC stands proved against the 17 accused no.1, but the same is covered U/S. 506 (i), as no threat of death or grievous hurt has been extended to the complainant or his family members.
So far the accused no.2 is concerned, again no evidence has come out on record against the accused no.2 to grill him for the offence U/S. 506/34 IPC.
8. After going through the entire material placed on record, I am of the considered opinion that the complainant has proved the offence U/S. 323/352/355/506 IPC against the accused no.1.
Though, the accused no.2 has not committed any offence specifically, yet everything was done in his presence and being incharge of the school, he was supposed to take action against his subordinate, who was doing all the illegal acts against the complainant, but he did not do anything to save the complainant from the clutches of the accused no.1 and even he supported the acts of the accused no.1 silently. The conduct of the accused no.2 is also not beyond doubt, but in the criminal jurispendence, the complainant is duty bound to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and just on the basis of this principle, the accused has managed himself to save from the criminal punishment, but his role in the entire incident is liable to be condemned.
The accused no.1 was the vice principal of the school and was duty bound to protect the students from the atrocities and to make them learn the things which were supposed to be learnt by the students during the school period, has caused illegal acts himself towards the complainant and even has thrashed the complainant in very bad manner and a minor child had to go through a mental agony and shock of the incident and has to pursue this case to get justice for such a long period. The acts of the accused no.1 is not 18 only against the complainant, but also against the humanity. In such a civilized society, no one can imagine that the students are being treated in such a manner by a well educated teacher that they are being punished in such a manner for such small things. Though, the complainant was at fault and he should have not taken the bath in the school water tank, yet he was not entitled for such a treatment. It is a clear case of atrocities against a helpless student, who was paraded in the school in naked condition and was thrashed badly by the vice principal in the open ground in the presence of other students and he was rebuked in such a derogatory language which cannot be repeated frequently. Even the colleagues of the complainant were compelled by the accused to call ''shame shame'' to the accused and he was not allowed to hide his face. Such a incident is required to be condemned, but in view of the legal proposition, the accused only may be convicted. Without impeaching the conduct of the accused further, it will be in the interest of justice, if the accused P.C. Gupta be convicted for his acts. The complainant has proved the charges against the accused no.1 beyond reasonable doubts, accordingly, I hereby convict the accused P.C. Gupta for the offence U/S. 323/352/355/506 IPC and the accused no.2 Dhyan Singh is hereby acquitted in the absence of any evidence against him.
Announced in the Court of ( Devendra Kumar ) on 19.03.07 MM : Delhi. 19 IN THE COURT OF SH. DEVENDRA KUMAR : MM : DELHI. Case No. 5023/06 In Re : Sh Rakesh Kumar, S/o. Mr. Sone Pal, R/o. A-466, Sangam Park, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi -110 009. Through Parents' Forum for Meaningful Education B-11, Virat Bhawan, Mukherjee Nagar, Commercial Complex, Delhi. .....Complainant. Versus 1. Mr. P.C. Gupta Vice Principal Govt. Boys Sr. Sec. School, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi. 2. Mr. Dhiyan Singh, Principal Govt. Boys Sr. Sec. School, Rana Pratap Bagh, Delhi. ......Accused. Order on Quantum of Sentence.
Arguments on quantum of sentence of the accused heard.
It is submitted by the counsel for the accused that the accused is aged about 65 years and as good anticidents and not a previously convicted. It is further submitted that the accused is highly qualified and belongs to a respectable family. It is further submitted that the accused has two daughters' and one son, who is well settled in business. It is further submitted that the accused was selected by the Govt. for a course of Instruction in Science Education provided by British Govt. at London in the year 1981 and 20 he completed the same during the period October 1981 to June 1982. It is further submitted that the convict has been paying scholarships of Rs.250/- to Rs.1,000/- to the topper students in the annual examination of classes between class 6th to class 12th from his own income. It is further submitted that the accused has faced a long trial and the offence committed by him was committed in the good faith. It is further submitted that the convict is a diabetic patient and he is going to suffer a heavy loss of gratiuity amounting to Rs.3,50,000/-. It is further submitted that a lenient view be taken against the accused and he be given the benefit of Section 4 of Probations of Offenders Act, 1958.
In support of his arguments, the Ld. Counsel for the accused has relied upon 2004 Cr.L.J. 3190 (DEL) Nathu Ram & Mange Ram V. State. 2004 Cr.L.J. 2321 Virender Singh V. State 2004 Cr.L.J. 2310 Pawan Kumar & Ors. V. State In view of the abovesaid citations, the counsel for the accused has submitted that the accused is entitled for the benefit of Probation and the same be granted.
On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that the accused has been convicted by this Court for the offences U/S. 323/352/355/506 IPC and the offences committed by the accused are of such nature that the accused is not entitled for any mercy. It is further submitted that due to, the acts of the accused, the complainant has to go through a mental agony and he has to seek justice from this Court after a fight of so long period. It is further submitted that the accused was supposed to follow the National Policy on Education, 1986 revised in the year 1992, as per which, accused was duty bound to provide cultural education to the complainant, but he has failed to upheld the dignity of his job and the accused be convicted for the full punishment as prescribed 21 by law. It is further submitted that the judgments relied upon by the accused are not helpful, as the same are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.
I have heard the arguments and perused the record. I have already convicted the accused vide my Judgment dt. 19.03.07. It is a matter of fact that the accused was the vice principal of the school and he caused humiliation and beatings to the complainant in front of the colleagues as well as teachers of the school, due to the complainant sustained physical injuries as well as mental trauma. The complainant even has to face humiliation in front of his parents as well. The conduct of the accused after the incident was also not up-to-mark, as he tried to hush up the matter thereby obtaining a writing from the complainant, so that he could have escaped from the clutches of law. The accused is well educated person and was a teacher by profession at the time of incident and was required to give the cultural education to the students, so that good culture may develop in the students, but the accused committed the offence of moral turpitude in full sense. Even the accused never realised his mistake and continued to raise different pleas during the trial till he convicted by this Court. The National Policy on Education, 1986 relied upon by the counsel for the complainant clearly suggest in Part Rule 8.1, ''de-culturalisation, de-huminisation and alienation must be avoided at all cost.'' In view of the policy laid down by the Govt. of India for education, clearly suggest that all the teachers are guardian of the students in schools to make them learn all the good habits and cultural education. The accused was also bound by the principles of education laid down by the policy makers.
The accused has followed the principle of Corporal punishment which has already been declared null and void by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CWP No. 196/98 in the matter titled 22 Parents' Forum of Meaningful Education V. Union of India & Ors. After strucking of Rule 37 of Delhi School Education Rules, 1973, the accused has not only committed the offence, but also committed the contempt of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as well. No doubt, the offences committed by the accused are of no such big on account of punishment prescribed by the law, but the offences are big on account of humanity. The offences committed by the accused are not against the complainant, but against a child, who was not in position to protect himself from the clutches of the principal, who was his guardian at that time.
So far the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the accused are concerned, the same are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case, as in all the cases the financial aspect was involved and none of the parties in the abovesaid judgments faced such mental agony, as suffered by the complainant.
In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the accused is not entitled for any leniency and the application for Probation of the accused is hereby dismissed, but in view of the age of the accused, some lenient view is being taken.
I hereby sentenced the accused P.C. Gupta for the punishment of a term of imprisonment of six months (R.I.) for the offence U/S. 323 IPC and fine of Rs.1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, he has to undergo a further imprisonment for 15 days.
The accused is further sentenced for a punishment of a term of imprisonment of three months ( R.I. ) for the offence U/S. 352 IPC and fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, he has to undergo a further imprisonment for 15 days.
The accused is further sentenced for a punishment of a term of imprisonment of one year ( R.I. ) for the offence U/S. 355 IPC 23 and fine of Rs.2500/-. In default of payment of fine, he has to undergo a further imprisonment for 15 days.
The accused is further sentenced for a punishment of a term of imprisonment of one year ( R.I. ) for the offence U/S. 506 (i) IPC and fine of Rs.1000/-. In default of payment of fine, he has to undergo a further imprisonment for 15 days.
The complainant has suffered such a mental agony, due to he is entitled for a compensation. The fine imposed on the accused shall be awarded as compensation to the complainant. All the punishment shall run concurrently. Bail bond cancelled. Surety discharged. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Court of ( Devendra Kumar ) on 26.03.07 MM : Delhi.