Bangalore District Court
The State By Jalahalli vs Father Mathew.T.T on 29 March, 2021
IN THE COURT OF XXXIX ADDL.ACMM,
BENGALURU
Present : Sandesh Prabhu.B. BA.L., LL.B.
XXXIX ACMM, Bengaluru,
C.C.No.1271/2007
Dated : On this the 29th March, 2021
Complainant: The State by Jalahalli
Police Station, Bengaluru
(By Assistant Public Prosecutor).
V/s
Accused: Father Mathew.T.T,
S/o Thamas,
r/at C.P.H,
St.Claret school surroundings,
Sharadamba nagara,
M.E.S road, Jalahalli,
Bangalore
(By M/s Tomy Sebastian Associates
Advocates)
Date of Report of Offence : 17122006
Name of the Complainant : M.K.Basavaraju
Date of Commencement of
recording of Evidence : 16012010
Date of Closing of evidence : 19022018
Offences complained are :U/Sec 354, 506 and
509 of IPC
76 CC1271/2007
Opinion of the Judge : Accused found
guilty
(Sandesh Prabhu B.)
XXXIX ACMM,
Bengaluru
:: JUDGEMENT ::
The PSI of Jalahalli PS, Bengaluru has filed charge
sheet against the accused for the offences punishable
U/Sec. 354, 506 and 509 of IPC.
2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell is as
follows :
The accused was working as principal in St.Claret
school situated at Jalahalli and the daughter of the
complainant who is CW2 was studying in SSLC in the
said school. About one year prior to the filing of
complaint, when the daughter of the complainant was
studying in 9th standard the accused was summoning
CW2 often to his chamber and was observing the PW2
from top to bottom and was saying in vulgar words that
76 CC1271/2007
her chest is small and she should make it big like
Surekha teacher. Further when the daughter of the
complainant who is CW2 was studying in SSLC, about
6 to 7 months prior to the filing of complaint, the
accused was calling CW2 to his chamber with regard to
her progress in the education and when the CW2 went
to the chamber of the accused he was seeing her from
top to bottom and was saying that can I love you, can I
kiss you, can I hug you and whether he could marry
her. The accused further saying that if he removes the
dress of the priest of church he is a common man and
further saying to the CW2 that she should walk by
chest forwarding posture and should make inshirt her
shirt very tightly. It is the further allegation against the
accused that he was checking the school bag of the
CW2 and was saying to use whisper pad and thereby
outraged the modesty of the daughter of complainant.
Further from 15092006 to 25092006 there was
76 CC1271/2007
school trip to North India and when the CW2 went to
the said trip along with other students, the accused had
also came to the said trip and when the CW2 along with
other students were traveling in the train, on
16092006 when CW2 and 4 were playing cards, the
accused came to the said place and sat near to CW2
and told her to teach him the playing of cards and
thereafter he touched the thigh and hands of the CW2.
On next day when the CW2 was alone the accused
again called the CW2 and told to her that she should
not spread his said act and if she spreads the same he
will not issue hall ticket during the examination.
Further on 15122006 even though the CW2 had not
committed any mistake the accused told to CW2 to
stand outside the class and told that she had already
spread the said news and gave threat that he will not
issue hall ticket for the examination and he will spread
the bad news against CW2 in order to spoil her life. It is
76 CC1271/2007
also the allegation against the accused that he had also
given similar sexual harassment to CW3 to 6.
3. Based on complaint lodged by the complainant,
police have registered the case against the accused in
Cr.no.164/2006 and filled charge sheet against the
accused for the offence punishable u/s 354,509,506 of
IPC.
4. After filing of charge sheet this court had taken
cognizance against the accused for the said offences
and in pursuance of the summons accused appeared
before the court through his counsel and he was
enlarged on bail. Thereafter charge sheet copies were
furnished to the accused as contemplated u/s 207 of
Cr.P.C. Thereafter heard the learned prosecution and
counsel for accused about framing of charge. Since
there were sufficient materials to frame the charge
against the accused, charges were framed u/s 354, 506
76 CC1271/2007
& 509 of IPC. The sum and substance of the accusation
was read over to the accused, his answer to the said
accusation was denial and he claimed to be tried.
Hence, the prosecution was given an opportunity to
establish the guilt of the accused.
5. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of
the accused it got examined 10 witnesses as PW1 to 10
and got marked documentary evidence as per Ex.P1 to
P9. The prosecution has failed to examine CW4 to 7, 11
to 13, 18 to 21 and 23 due to the non availability of the
address of said witnesses. Therefore the evidence of said
witnesses was dropped as per the order of the court
dated 21042018 and 19102019.
6. Heard the arguments of learned prosecution
and counsel for accused has filed detailed written
arguments.
76 CC1271/2007
7. The points that arise for consideration of this
Court are as under :
:: POINTS ::
1. Whether the prosecution proves beyond
all reasonable doubts that the accused
being the principal of St.Claret school
was summoning CW2 who was studying
in 9th standard in the said school often
to his chamber and was observing the
CW2 from top to bottom and was saying
in vulgar words that her chest is small
and she should make it big like Surekha
teacher. Further when the CW2 was
studying in SSLC, about 6 to 7 months
prior to the filing of complaint, the
accused was calling CW2 to his chamber
with regard to her progress in the
education and when the CW2 went to the
chamber of the accused he was seeing
her from top to bottom and was saying
that can I love you, can I kiss you, can I
hug you and whether he could marry her.
The accused further saying that if he
removes the dress of the priest of church
he is a common man and further saying
76 CC1271/2007
to the CW2 that she should walk by chest
forwarding posture and should make
inshirt her shirt very tightly. Further the
accused was checking the school bag of
the CW2 and was saying to use whisper
pad with an intention to insult the
modesty of CW2 thereby committed an
offence u/s 509 of IPC?
2. Whether the prosecution further proves
beyond all reasonable doubt that from
15092006 to 25092006 there was
school trip to North India and when the
CW2 went to the said trip along with
other students, the accused had also
came to the said trip and when the CW2
along with other students was traveling
in the train, on 16092006 when CW2
and 4 were playing cards, the accused
came to the said place and sat near to
CW2 and told her to teach him the
playing of card and thereafter he touched
the thigh and hands of the CW2 and
thereby used criminal force on CW2
with an intention to outrage the modesty
76 CC1271/2007
and thereby committed an offence
punishable u/s 354 of IPC?
3. Whether the prosecution further proves
beyond all reasonable doubt that on
17092016 accused called to CW2 and
told her that she should not spread his
act and if she spreads his act, he will not
issue hall ticket during the examination.
Further on 15122006 even though the
CW2 had not committed any mistake the
accused told to CW2 to stand outside the
class and told that she had already
spread the said news and gave threat
that he will not issue hall ticket for the
examination and he will spread the bad
news against CW2 in order to spoil her
life, committed an act of criminal
intimidation so as to cause alarm in her
mind and thereby committed an offence
punishable u/s 506 of IPC.
4. What Order?
8. The findings of this Court on above points are
as under:
Point No.1 to 3: In Affirmative
76 CC1271/2007
Point No.4 : As per the final order
for the following:
REASONS
9. POINT No.1 to 3 : All these points are
connected each other and in order to avoid the
repetition of the facts and appreciation of the evidence,
all these points are taken up together for common
consideration.
10. It is the specific case of the prosecution that
The accused was working as principal in St.Claret
school situated at Jalahalli and the daughter of the
complainant who is CW2 was studying in SSLC in the
said school. About one year prior to the filing of
complaint, when the daughter of the complainant was
studying in 9th standard the accused was summoning
CW2 often to his chamber and was observing the PW2
from top to bottom and was saying in vulgar words that
her chest is small and she should make it big like
76 CC1271/2007
Surekha teacher. Further when the daughter of the
complainant who is CW2 was studying in SSLC, about
6 to 7 months prior to the filing of complaint, the
accused was calling CW2 to his chamber with regard to
her progress in the education and when the CW2 went
to the chamber of the accused he was seeing her from
top to bottom and was saying that can I love you, can I
kiss you, can I hug you and whether he could marry
her. The accused further saying that if he removes the
dress of the priest of church he is a common man and
further saying to the CW2 that she should walk by
chest forwarding posture and should make inshirt her
shirt very tightly. It is the further allegation against the
accused that he was checking the school bag of the
CW2 and was saying to use whisper pad and thereby
outraged the modesty of the daughter of complainant.
Further from 15092006 to 25092006 there was
school trip to North India and when the CW2 went to
the said trip along with other students, the accused had
76 CC1271/2007
also came to the said trip and when the CW2 along with
other students were traveling in the train, on
16092006 when CW2 and 4 were playing cards, the
accused came to the said place and sat near to CW2
and told her to teach him the playing of cards and
thereafter he touched the thigh and hands of the CW2.
On next day when the CW2 was alone the accused
again called the CW2 and told to her that she should
not spread his said act and if she spreads the same he
will not issue hall ticket during the examination.
Further on 15122006 even though the CW2 had not
committed any mistake the accused told to CW2 to
stand outside the class and told that she had already
spread the said news and gave threat that he will not
issue hall ticket for the examination and he will spread
the bad news against CW2 in order to spoil her life. It is
also the allegation against the accused that he had also
given similar sexual harassment to CW3 to 6.
76 CC1271/2007
11. The prosecution in order to bring home the
guilt of the accused it got examined 10 witnesses out of
totally cited 24 witnesses. The PW1 is the complainant
and the father of the victim, The PW2 is the victim who
deposed about the incident, PW3 is the another victim
in CC No.1270/2007 and who also deposed about the
alleged act of the accused, PW4 is the mother of the
victim who deposed about the incident, PW5 is the
student of said school who deposed about the incident,
PW6 is the PI who investigated the case and filed charge
sheet against the accused, PW7 to 9 are the teachers of
the said St.Claret school who deposed about the
allegation made against the accused and PW10 is the
ASI who registered the case against the accused. Along
with oral evidence the prosecution got marked
documentary evidence as per Ex.P1 to P9 which
includes the complaint, spot mahazar, FIR, statement of
witnesses who turned hostile, SMS details issued by
BSNL office and report issued by the Administrative
76 CC1271/2007
officer of St.Claret school. As it is stated above the
prosecution is failed to examine CW4 to 7, 11, 13 , 18,
21 & 23 since they were not found in the address and
they were dropped as per the order of the court dated
21042018 and 19102019.
12. Now it is necessary to analyse the oral
evidence of prosecution witness. The PW1 is the
complainant and father of victim. The said witness in
his examination in chief deposed that the CW2 is his
daughter and she studied from LKG to SSLC in
St.Claret school, Jalahalli. In the year 2006, the
accused was the principal of said school. The CW3 to 6
were the friends of his daughter and when her daughter
was studying in SSLC during year 2006 she had gone to
tour in the month of September 2006. The witness
further deposed that after 10 to 15 days his daughter
came back from the tour and said that when they were
playing cards in the train the accused used to touch her
76 CC1271/2007
body and was talking in vulgar words. The witness
further deposed that the accused had pinched to the
hips and knees of her daughter. The witness further
deposed that on 17022006 his daughter had
went to the house of the complainant in CC
No.1270/2007 for attending marriage anniversary
function and when her daughter did not return till 8.30
PM, he made a phone call to the house of said CW1 in
CC No.1270/2007 and the wife of CW1 had picked up
the phone call and told that his daughter and other
friends crying in a room. The witness further deposed
that thereafter he went to the house of said CW1
namely Muralidhar at 9.00 PM and on enquiry his
daughter told that the accused had misbehaved with
her and other students. The witness further deposed
that the accused had told to his daughter and other
students that if they spread the said act of accused he
will not issue Hall ticket, Character certificate and also
will not allow to attend for examination. The witness
76 CC1271/2007
further deposed that he filed complaint against the
accused. The witness has identified the complaint given
by him. The accused counsel subjected this witness for
elaborate cross examination.
13. The prosecution got examined the victim in the
alleged incident as PW2. The said witness in her oral
evidence has deposed that she was studying at SSLC in
the year 2006 at St Clarets school situated at Jalahalli.
The CW4 to 6 were also studying in same standard
along with her. The witness further deposed that at that
time the accused was the principle of said school. The
witness further deposed that the accused was giving
sexual ill treatment to herself and other girls students
when she was in the 9th standard. The accused was
often calling to her to come to the chamber and was
seeing from top to bottom and was saying that can I
love you, can I kiss you, can I marry you. Further the
accused was saying that if he wear the coat he is priest
76 CC1271/2007
of the church or otherwise he is a common man and
was insisting her to love him. The witness further
deposed that accused was saying vulgarly that her
chest size is small and she should make it big like
Surekha teacher and she should make inshirt of the
shirt very tightly. The witness also deposed that when
she along with other students were going for playing, at
that time the accused was checking her bag and was
saying to change the napkins. The witness further
deposed that on 15092006 a tour was conducted from
the school to Delhi, Manali and Shimla and when she
came to know that the accused will not come to the said
tour, she along with other students decided to go for
tour. The witness further deposed that on 15092006
the accused had also came to railway station but since
she along with other students already came to railway
station they decided to go to said trip. The witness also
deposed that when she along with her friends playing
cards in the train , the accused often come to the said
76 CC1271/2007
place and told to teach playing of the cards. The
witness further deposed that when she was playing
along with one Rashmi and Sumana, the accused came
to the said place and told to said Sumana to get up
from the said sitting place and thereafter the accused
had sat near to her. The witness further deposed that
thereafter the accused had touched her hip in bad
manner and at that time she resisted for the same and
told to behave like a principal. The witness further
deposed that thereafter she came out from the said
place and thereafter they came back to their house after
completing the school trip. The witness further deposed
that when the said act of the accused was came to know
to all the students, accused started troubling to her.
The witness further deposed that the accused was
saying that she should not tell the said act of the
accused to her parents and if she tells the same he will
spread that her character is not good. The witness
further deposed that if she tells his said act he will not
76 CC1271/2007
issue hall ticket and also character certificate. Further
the accused was giving threat by saying that he will give
lesser marks to her.
14. The witness further deposed that on 1712
2016 there was anniversary of the parents of her friend
who is CW3 and she along with CW4 and 6 and other
students were attended to the said marriage
anniversary and when they were discussing about the
said act of the accused, the mother of CW3 came to
know about the act of the accused and thereafter the
mother of CW3 had informed the said act of accused to
the parents of other students. The witness further
deposed about lodging of complaint by her father and
also the father of CW3 against the present accused. The
accused counsel subjected this witness for very
elaborate cross examination.
76 CC1271/2007
15. The prosecution got examined PW3 who is
another victim in CC no.1270/2007. The said witness
in her examination in chief deposed that in the year
2010 she wasstudying in SSLC at St. Clarets school
situated at Jalahalli and CW2, 4 to 6 were also studying
in the same standard along with her. The witness
further deposed that the accused was the principal of
their school and when she was studying in SSLC she
came to know that the accused is behaving in decently
with the girls. The witness further deposed that the
accused was often telling to come to his chamber and
the accused had also told this witness to come to his
chamber. The witness further deposed that when she
was going to the chamber of the accused he was seeing
in bad manner from top to bottom and was talking
indecently that what you feel about me, do you love me.
The witness further deposed that the accused was
checking her bag and was saying to change the
napkins. The accused was doing oftenly like that. The
76 CC1271/2007
witness further deposed that on 15092006 a school
trip was planned in order to go to Delhi, Manali and
Simla and she came to know that the accused will not
come to said trip. The witness further deposed that she
along with her friends decided to go to said trip and
they went to railway station. In total there were 55
students, 3 lady teachers and another teacher were
came to railway station in order to go for trip. The
accused had also came to railway station even if he told
that he will not come for trip. The witness further
deposed that when she was going in the train along
with other student , she avoided the accused but the
accused had called for playing the cards and had told
that do you love me, treat him as her boy friend. The
witness further deposed that thereafter she told to the
accused to behave like principal and at that time the
accused indecently put his hand on her hip and at that
time she avoided from the clutches of the accused and
she went away. The witness further deposed that
76 CC1271/2007
thereafter she informed the said act of the accused to
her friends and at that time she came to know that the
accused had also behaved indecently with her friend
who is CW2. The witness further deposed that the
accused was threatening that he will not issue Hall
Ticket and Character Certificate if his act is disclosed.
16. The witness further deposed that on 1712
2006 there was a marriage anniversary of her parents
and to the said function CW2, 4 to 6 were also came
and when they were talking about the conduct of the
accused, the CW4 had heard the same and thereafter
her mother had informed the said act of the accused to
parents of other students. The witness further deposed
about lodging of complaint against the accused. The
accused counsel elaborately cross examined this
witness.
76 CC1271/2007
17. The prosecution got examined PW4 who is the
mother of PW3. The said witness in her oral evidence
has categorically deposed about the incident. The said
witness has deposed that her daughter who is PW3 was
studying in SSLC at St.Clarets school and the accused
was principal of the said school. The witness further
deposed that on 15092006 her daughter along with
other students went for tour and on 26092009 her
daughter came back from tour and there was huge
changes in the conduct of her daughter. The witness
further deposed that her daughter was not talking
property and one day when they went outside for meals,
at that time her daughter told to her that the principal
was giving ill treatment. The witness further deposed
that on 17122006 her daughter had called her
parents for marriage anniversary function and on said
day when all the friends were talking in a room she
came to know about the sexual harassment given by the
accused. The witness further came to know that the
76 CC1271/2007
accused was oftenly calling the students to come to his
chamber and was giving sexual harassment to the
students. The witness further deposed that the accused
was also threatening that he will not issue Hall Ticket
and Character Certificate if they disclose his said
indecent act. The witness further deposed that her
daughter was insisting her that she will not go to school
if she is sent to school forcibly she will commit suicide.
The witness further deposed that thereafter she by
discussing with her sisters filed complaint against the
accused. The accused counsel subjected this witness for
elaborate cross examination.
18. The prosecution got examined PW5 who is the
student studying along with victims in said school. The
said witness in his oral evidence deposed that the
accused was the principal of said St.Clarets school. The
witness further deposed that when he was studying in
9th standard and also in SSLC, the accused was calling
76 CC1271/2007
the lady students to come to his chamber and was
giving sexual harassment. The witness further deposed
that he came to know about the said fact from 3
persons when he was in 9th standard. Further he came
to know about the act of the accused from victim herself
when he was in SSLC. The witness further deposed that
he himself saw that the accused was calling the girl
students to his chamber and was talking for very long
time. The witness further deposed when he was in 10 th
standard on 15092006 he along with other students
went for trip at Delhi, Shimla and Manali. The accused
had also came to the said trip. The witness further
deposed that in the said trip the accused was calling to
the girl students and was talking the unwanted things
with them. The witness further the accused had called
CW2 and the accused behaved with her indecently and
when she resisted for the same the accused left the
said place. The witness further deposed that when they
were coming back from trip in train the accused again
76 CC1271/2007
committed the same act with CW2 and other girls. The
witness further deposed that he had seen the said act
of accused but he is not aware that whether other
students have also seen the said act of the accused. The
witness has also deposed that after returning from the
said trip the principal had asked the opinion and
expression about the said trip and he told his
experience in good words in order to stop embarrass the
principal. The witness further deposed that after
returning from said trip the accused has also continued
his act towards girls students including the present
PW2 and 3. The witness has also deposed that CW1 had
made enquiry with him about the said act occurred in
train and he had informed the said act of accused to
CW1. The witness further deposed that the accused
came to know that the CW1 had made enquiry with him
about the said act and thereafter the accused had
obtained a letter from him. The witness further deposed
that after the said incident the accused was creating
76 CC1271/2007
fear by giving punishment and when the parents of the
students came to know about the said act of the
accused the Association of Hindu Religion Organization
had pelt stone to the said school and the accused with
the fear that he will be arrested, he absconded for 2
days. The witness further deposed that after the said
incident for 1 year the accused was making call and
wishing for Birthday in order to avoid giving evidence in
future. The accused counsel subjected this witness for
elaborate cross examination.
19. The prosecution got examined PW6 who is the
PI who investigated the case and filed charge sheet
against the accused. The said witness in his
examination in chief deposed that he after receiving the
case file from CW20, visited the house of complainant
and obtained the statement of CW2 and he also
obtained the statement of CW3 to 6. The witness further
deposed about the drawing of the mahazar in the place
76 CC1271/2007
of incident as per Ex.P2. The witness has also deposed
about the recording of statement of CW7, 12 to 16. The
witness further deposed about arresting of the accused
and releasing him on station bail, obtaining of the call
list from BSNL office and obtaining of certificate from
the school administration authority relating to the CW2
to 5 who were studying in the said school and filing of
charge sheet after completion of the investigation. The
accused counsel subjected this witness for elaborate
cross examination. During cross examination of this
witness the accused counsel confronted 9 documents as
per Ex.D1 to D9.
20. The prosecution got examined PW7 who is the
teacher in said school. The said witness in her
examination in chief deposed that she is the teacher at
St.Clarets school since 1996 and she is aware about the
accused and there is allegation against him about the
misconduct with students and she had given statement
76 CC1271/2007
before the police. The accused counsel subjected this
witness for cross examination.
21. The prosecution got examined PW8 who is the
another teacher of said St.Clarets school. The said
witness deposed that she is the teacher in said school
since 1989 and she was teaching to the students of 9 th
standard and SSLC. The witness further deposed that
she knows the accused and her students by name
Priyadarshini and Mouna had made false allegation
against the accused. The prosecution treated this
witness has hostile witness and cross examined by
suggesting about the act of the accused but the witness
has denied the said suggestion put by the prosecution.
The accused counsel also subjected this witness for
cross examination.
22. The prosecution got examined another teacher
of said school as PW9 and the said witness in his
76 CC1271/2007
examination in chief deposed that the accused was the
principal of his school and he was the teacher to the
10th standard. The witness further deposed that in the
year 2006 after returning from school trip there was
news in news paper that the accused had given sexual
harassment to the school students and the CW2 and 3
had given complaint against the accused. The accused
counsel subjected this witness for cross examination.
23. Lastly the prosecution got examined PW10
who is the ASI who registered the case against the
accused. The said witness in his examination in chief
deposed about registering of FIR against the accused on
the basis of complaint given by the complainant.
24. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt
of the accused it should establish that there was
assault or use of criminal force to women with intend to
outrage her modesty. As per section 354 of IPC the
76 CC1271/2007
prosecution in order to fix liability on the accused it
should establish about the following facts.
1. Use of criminal force or assault to any women.
2. Use of said criminal force with intention that it will
outrage the modesty of said victim.
25. On careful perusal of section 354 of IPC the
intention which also called Mensrea forms an important
component in the commission of such an act. The
intention to outrage the modesty of a women is the
driving force deserve the commission of the offence. The
word modesty has perceived under section refers to the
universally accepted womanly behavior. The key
components required to be establish by the prosecution
in order to attract the offence envisaged under said
section includes.
1. Aggrieved must be on women.
2. There was a assault or use of criminal force against
the aggrieved.
76 CC1271/2007
26. The burden of proof lies on prosecution to
prove that the act of accused constituted an assault or
use of criminal force as defined in section 350 and 351
of IPC. Therefore on close perusal of the section implies
that the intentional use of force or any gesture
apprehending the person concerned forms the gist in
the commission of said offence. The prosecution must
prove that there was an intention or knowledge existed
on the part of the accused while committing the said
offence and also prove the fact that the women felt that
her modesty was outraged would satisfy the necessary
ingredients of said offence.
27. The intention and knowledge of the accused
forms his course state of mind. They cannot be
determined by direct evidence. The intention and
knowledge of accused has to be ascertained by looking
at the circumstances of the case. It is also to be kept in
mind that when a reasonable man looking at the
76 CC1271/2007
circumstances of the case will think that the act of
offender was intended to or was known to be likely to
outrage the modesty of women.
28. Now in present case it is also the allegation
against the accused that he committed the offences
punishable u/s 509 of IPC which also speaks about
use of any word or gesture of act intended to insult the
modesty of women. On careful perusal of the said
section also there must be intention to insult the
modesty of women by uttering any words or gesture and
said gesture or word will insult the modesty of women.
By keeping in mind the ingredients above discussed two
sections now it is necessary to conclude whether the
prosecution is successful in bring home the guilt of the
accused.
29. On careful perusal of the entire materials
available on record one thing is clear that two students
76 CC1271/2007
have made similar allegation against the accused and
two separate cases have been registered against the
accused. Now it is necessary to conclude whether the
evidence adduced by the prosecution has established
the guilt of the accused. As it is discussed above the
PW2 and 3 are the victims in the present case as well
CC No.1270/2007. The entire case of prosecution
mainly stands on the evidence of PW2 who is the victim
in the present case and evidence of PW3 who is victim
in CC No.1270/2007. Both these witnesses have
deposed the same version in both cases. Along with
evidence of victim the prosecution has also examined
PW5 who is the student who studied along with the
victims. The case of the prosecution is also supported
by the evidence of PW1 who is father of victim in
present case and PW4 who is the mother of the PW3.
30. As it is discussed above the PW1 is the father
of the victim and who lodged complaint against the
76 CC1271/2007
accused. The said witness in his oral evidence
categorically deposed that on 17122006 is daughter
had went to the house of CW3 for the marriage
anniversary function and in the said function when the
victims and other friends of the victims were talking
about the act of the accused, the mother of CW3 came
to know about the alleged act of the accused and
thereafter she informed the said victim to the present
complainant and thereafter he went to the house of
CW3 and when he went to the house of CW3 he came to
know about the act of the accused and thereafter he
filed complaint against the accused. On careful perusal
of the entire cross examination of this witness even
though the accused counsel has subjected that he never
went to the house of CW3 and false allegation made
against the accused but the said suggestion has denied
by this witness. On careful appreciation of entire oral
evidence of PW1 who is the complainant there is no any
76 CC1271/2007
unshaken evidence deposed by the said witness which
is contrary to the version of the prosecution.
31. The prosecution has also got examined PW4
who is the mother of PW3 who is the victim in another
case. As it is discussed above the said witness has
categorically deposed that how she came to know about
the alleged act of the accused. The said witness has
been subjected for elaborate cross examination and on
careful perusal of the cross examination of this witness
the accused counsel himself suggested that on 1712
2006 there was a marriage anniversary function in her
house and also suggested that CW2 to 6 were also
present in the said function. From the Suggestion put
by the accused counsel itself, one thing is clear that on
17122006 there was anniversary function in the
house of this witness and CW2 to 6 were gathered in
the said function. Further on careful perusal of entire
cross examination of this witness she categorically
76 CC1271/2007
deposed that on the day of the marriage anniversary
itself she came to know about the act of the accused
which was took place in the train when her daughter
along with other students went for trip. Further on
perusal of the cross examination of this witness she
categorically deposed that on 15122006 her daughter
had informed that the accused is not behaving properly
with the students. On careful perusal of the entire
cross examination of this witness there is no any
contradictory evidence which leads to unbelieve the
case of the prosecution. This witness in her oral
evidence has categorically deposed that she came to
know about the act of the accused from PW2, 3 and
other friends who gathered in the marriage anniversary
function. The said oral evidence of PW4 is not unshaken
during her cross examination and therefore there is no
hurdle to accept the oral evidence of this witness along
with the evidence of victims about the said act of the
accused.
76 CC1271/2007
32. Now the most important evidence available to
the prosecution is the evidence of PW2 and 3 who are
the victims from the act of the accused. The PW2 is the
victim in the present case and PW3 is the victim in CC
No1270/2007. In an evidence like this evidence of
victim plays vital role and therefore the evidence of PW2
and 3 has to be appreciated very carefully. As it is
discussed above the PW2 in her examination in chief
has deposed about the act of the accused very
elaborately and the accused counsel subjected this
witness for cross examination. On perusal of cross
examination of this witness she categorically deposed
that the accused was summoning her to come to his
chamber when she was studying in 9th standard and the
same was continued in SSLC. Further this witness has
categorically deposed that the accused was also
summoning to CW4 to 6 to his chamber and was
behaving in an indecent manner. Further on perusal of
the cross examination of this witness she categorically
76 CC1271/2007
deposed that the other students who are her friends
have also told with her about the said indecent behavior
of the accused. Further on perusal of the cross
examination of this witness the accused counsel has
elaborately cross examined about the incident took
place in the train when they went for trip. On careful
perusal of the entire cross examination of this witness
relating to the said incident taken place in the train, the
said witness has categorically deposed that the incident
was taken place in the train when they went to Delhi as
well as when they returned back. Further on perusal of
the cross examination of this witness she categorically
deposed that the accused had given sexual harassment
to her and PW3 in the said train when they went to
Delhi and also when they were returning from the trip.
Further on careful perusal of the oral evidence of this
witness she categorically deposed that on 17122006
she went to the house of PW3 for marriage anniversary
function and in the said function CW4 to 6 were also
76 CC1271/2007
came and when they were talking about the act of the
accused the mother of PW3 had heard the same and
when mother of the PW3 had informed the said act of
accused to her father, thereafter her father had made
enquiry with her and lodged the complaint. Further on
perusal of the cross examination of PW2 she
categorically deposed about the act of the accused
which was taken place after returning from the school
trip. On careful perusal of entire cross examination of
PW2 there is no facts deposed by said witness which
takes away the case of the prosecution or it affects the
core of the case of prosecution. The oral evidence of
PW2 is consistent with her earlier statement and also
with the case of the prosecution.
33. As it is discussed above the prosecution got
examined PW3 who is also the victim due to the act of
the accused. The said witness in her examination in
chief has deposed about the all the overt act of the
76 CC1271/2007
accused. On perusal of the cross examination of this
witness also she deposed in detailed about the incident
which was taken place when she was studying in SSLC.
Further on perusal of the cross examination of this
witness the said witness in detaile has also deposed
about the incident took place in the train to herself and
to PW2 when they went for North India trip. On perusal
of the said part of the cross examination this witness
has categorically deposed that the accused had
misbehaved with her when she was going in the train as
well as when she was returning from the trip. On
careful perusal of cross examination of this witness
dated 03122016 she has elaborately stated about the
act of the accused and also sexual harassment given by
the accused to her and also PW2. Further this witness
has categorically deposed that several times the
accused had called her and had misbehaved with her.
Further this witness has also deposed about the
incident which was took place prior to said trip. The
76 CC1271/2007
PW3 has categorically deposed that the accused was
often summoning herself and her other friends and was
misbehaving with them.
34. Further this witness during her cross
examination has categorically deposed that when there
was anniversary function in her house, her parents and
parents of PW2 and other students came to know about
the act of the accused and thereafter her father had
lodged complaint against the accused. On careful
perusal of entire oral evidence of PW3 there is no any
major contradictory evidence which takes away the case
of the prosecution. The oral evidence of PW3 is
consistent with earlier statement and also consistent
with the case of the prosecution.
35. As it is discussed above along with the oral
evidence of victims, the prosecution has also got
examined PW5 who is the student of same class
76 CC1271/2007
wherein the victims were studying. As it is discussed
above the said witness has categorically deposed about
the act of the accused prior to the said trip as well as
act made by the accused during the said trip. On
careful perusal of cross examination of this witness
even though the accused counsel in lengthy has cross
examined this witness but the oral evidence of this
witness does not wash away the case of the prosecution
and there is no any major admissions which falsify the
case of the prosecution. The oral evidence of PW5 is
very much helpful to the prosecution to bring home the
guilt of the accused.
36. The accused counsel in his written arguments
has pointed out some minor contradictions in the oral
evidence of PW2 and 3 who are the victims regarding
the act of the accused which was taken place in the
train. The accused counsel has pointed out some minor
contradictions but the said contradictions pointed out
76 CC1271/2007
by the accused counsel does not take away the case of
the prosecution. The alleged incident was taken place in
the year 2006 but the PW2 and 3 had given their
evidence after lapse of more than 6 years and they
might have forgotten some minors facts about the said
incident but that itself not enough to conclude that
there is doubt in the case of the prosecution.
37. It is settled principle of law that only for minor
contradictions in the oral evidence of victims and other
eye witnesses the entire case of the prosecution cannot
be suspected. It is relevant here to quote the ruling
reported in AIR 1983 Supreme Court 1753Bhogin
bhanHirji bhai V/s State of Gujarath Discrepancy
which do not come to the route of the matter and shake
the basic version of the witnesses cannot be annexed
with undue importance. More so when the all important
"probabilitiesfactor" echoes in favour of the version
narrated by the witnesses.
76 CC1271/2007
38. Further it has been held in AIR 1985
Supreme court SC48State of UP V/w M.K.AntonyIn
appreciation of evidence, the approach must be whether
the evidence of witness read as whole, appears to have a
ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, the court
which scrutinize the evidence keeping in view the
decencies, draw backs and infirmities pointed out in the
evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out
whether it is against the general tenure of the evidence
given by him and whether the earlier evaluation of the
evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief.
Minor discrepancy on trivial matter not touching the
core of the case, hyper technical approach by taking
sentence torn out of context here or there from the
evidence, attaching importance to same technical error
committed by the Investigating Officer not going to the
route of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection
of the evidence as a whole.
76 CC1271/2007
39. It is also held in AIR 1988 SC 894Appa Bhai
V/s State of Gujarath, Hon'ble apex court has
observed that the court while appreciating the evidence
must not attach undue importance to minor
discrepancies. The discrepancy which do not shake
the basic version of the prosecution case may be
discarded. The errors due to lapse of memory may be
given least importance. When a doubt arise in respect of
certain facts alleged by such witness, the proper course
is to ignore that fact until unless it goes into the route
of matter so as to demolish the entire prosecution story.
The courts however should not believe the evidence of
such witnesses all to give if they are otherwise
trustworthy.
40. Further it is held in 2003(12) SCC 1693
Shamsuddin V/s State of Madhya Pradesh The core
of evidence has to be seen and not in border line aspect.
Minor variations which do not have any effect on the
76 CC1271/2007
credibility of evidence, cannot be basis to discard
intrinsic value of the evidence.
41. It is also held in 2011 in Criminal Law
Journal 2162 (SC) State of Uttar Pradesh V/s
Nagesh Unless discrepancies, contractions, and
inconsistencies affect the core of the prosecution case,
they cannot be basis to reject their evidence. Normal
discrepancy which bound to occur in the deposition of
witnesses due to error of observations, error of memory
due to mental deposition at the time of occurrence.
42. The principle laid down in the aforesaid ruling
aptly applicable to the fact and circumstances of the
present case. As it is discussed above the accused
counsel has pointed out some minor discrepancy in the
oral evidence of victims and eye witnesses but the said
minor discrepancies would not discredit their entire
testimony and the said contradictions and
76 CC1271/2007
inconsistency does not affect the core of the prosecution
case. Therefore the said argument of the counsel for
accused is not sustainable.
43. On careful perusal of the cross examination of
PW2, 3 and 5 it is one of the defence of the accused
that he is a strict principal and when the PW2, 3 and 5
and CW4 to 6 were talking outside after the class, the
accused advised them to behave properly and on said ill
will the PW2 and 3 through their father had given the
present false case. The accused counsel has suggested
the said defence of the accused to PW2 and 3 but they
have categorically denied the said suggestion put by the
accused counsel. The PW5 during his cross examination
admitted that he along with 4 male students and 5 female
students were talking after the school hours and the
accused had advised them not to behave like that. The PW5
further during his cross examination deposed that even
though the accused had advised to himself and other
students along with PW2 and 3 but they have not taken the
76 CC1271/2007
said advise very seriously. Even though the PW5 had
admitted that the accused had advised to behave strictly
during the school hours but that itself not enough to
conclude that on said ill will the false complaint has been
lodged against the accused. No student will make such a
serious allegation against the teacher unless the said
teacher had acted like that. Merely for the reason that the
accused had advised to the PW2 and 3 to behave strictly in
the school, it cannot be accepted that for said reason the
PW2 and 3 had made false allegation against the accused.
On careful perusal of the cross examination of PW2, 3 and 5
the accused counsel isnot successful in eliciting any
admission from the mouth of said witnesses that since the
accused had advised to the victims to behave properly
during school hours, they lodged false complaint against he
accused. Therefore this court comes to the conclusion that
the accused has failed to substantiate his said defense.
44. Further on perusal of the cross examination of
PW1 to 5, it is the defence of the accused that one Raghu is
running a school by name Mother Theressa school and the
76 CC1271/2007
father of PW2 and 3 are the friends of said Raghu and since
there were less students were going to said Mother Theressa
school, the said Raghu by colluding with the earlier teacher
of St.Claret school had created a false story against the
present accused who is the principal of said St.Cloret School
in order to create a false impression against the accused
and thereby reduce the number of admission of the
students to the said school. Even though the accused
counsel has suggested the said defence to all the witnesses
who supported the case of the prosecution but accused
counsel is not successful in eliciting any such admission in
order to prove the said defence. Moreover the accused had
not produced any other oral or documentary evidence of
substance the said defence. Therefore the said defence
raised by accused is also not substantiated by him.
45. The accused counsel in his written argument has
stated that except PW1 to 5 the other school teachers who
have been examined by the prosecution have not supported
its case and they are all turned hostile to to the case of the
prosecution and the said fact itself creates doubt about the
76 CC1271/2007
case of the prosecution. As it is discussed above the
prosecution has got examined PW7 to 9 who are the
teachers in St.Clarets school. The PW7 and 8 have
completely turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. The
PW9 who is the another teacher of said school in his
examination in chief deposed that the PW2 and 3 had made
allegation against the accused about sexual harassment and
they filed complaint against the accused. The said witness
during his examination has deposed that the accused had
not misbehaved with PW2 and 3. Even though the PW9 had
deposed during his cross examination that there was no
such behavior from the accused but there is no elaborate
cross examination of this witness that whether this witness
was in the same compartment in the said train when the
students went for trip. Mearly for the reason that the PW9
during his cross examination has deposed that the accused
had not misbehaved in the train but his examination in
chief cannot be completely ignored since he categorically
deposed that the PW2 and 3 had given complaint against
the accused about the sexual harassment given by him.
Therefore the evidence of PW9 who is one of the teacher of
76 CC1271/2007
said school also helpful to the prosecution in some extent to
establish the guilt of the accused. No doubt PW7 and 8 have
turned hostile to the case of the prosecution but in general
sense it cannot be expected that since the accused is
principal of said school and PW7 and 8 being the teachers of
said school they might have deposed by supporting the
accused with some fear or favour. Therefore even though the
PW7 and 8 have turned hostile to the case of the
prosecution but entire case of the prosecution cannot be
doubted when the victims and another student of same
class has categorically deposed about the act of the accused.
46. The counsel for accused in his written argument
has stated that the prosecution has not examined CW4 to 6
and 9 to 12 who are also the friends of the victims and also
not examined CW12 who is the class teacher of the victims
and they are the material witness to the prosecution case. It
is further stated in the written argument that the adverse
inference could be drawn for non examination of those
witnesses. As it is stated above the prosecution has not
examined CW4 to 6 and 9 to 12 who are the friends of the
76 CC1271/2007
victims and also class teacher of victim. Now the question to
be considered is whether the non examination of those
witnesses would seriously affect the case of the prosecution.
On perusal of the order sheet it reveals that several times
summons and NBW were issued to said witnesses and since
they were not in address, the prosecution could not present
them before the court for their examination. The prosecution
cited those witnesses to give evidence about the act of the
accused. No doubt the prosecution could not examine
aforesaid witnesses but their statement is similar to the
evidence of victims and PW5 who deposed about the act of
the accused. It is settled principle of law that quantity of
evidence is not much important and it is quality of the
evidence to be considered while concluding the act of the
accused. As it is discussed above, the evidence of PW1 to 5
who are the victims, eye witness and the parents of the
victims is fully corroborate each other and even though the
accused counsel elaborately cross examined those witness
nothing worth has been elicited which creates doubt about
the oral evidence deposed by victims and PW1, 4 and 5.
76 CC1271/2007
47. The Honb'e Supreme court of India in Manjith
Singh and another V/s state of Punjab and another
Crl.Apl.No. 2042/2010 with Crl.Apl.No.2276/2010, it
has been categorically held that in a criminal case it is not
the number of quantity but the quality of evidence is
material. It is further held that it is the duty of the court to
consider the trustworthiness of evidence on record which
inspires confidence and the same has to be accepted and
acted upon and in such situation no adverse inference
should be drawn from the fact of non examination of other
witnesses. As per the principle laid down in the aforesaid
ruling it is clear that adverse inference should not be drawn
for the fact of non examination of other witnesses when
there is sufficient witnesses already examined by the
prosecution.
48. It is also relevant here to quote another ruling
reported in (2007) 14 SCC 15 Namdeo VS State of
Maharastra it has been laid down that neither the
legislature nor the judiciary mandate that there must be
76 CC1271/2007
particular number of witnesses to record an order of
conviction against the accused. The legal system as always
laid emphasis on value weight and quality of witness rather
than on quantity, multiplicity or plurality of witnesses.
49. Further it has been held in (2010) 12 SCC 91
Bipin Kumar Mandal VS State of West Bengal, the Honb'le
Supreme Court has stated that it is not the quantity but the
quality that is material. It is further held that the evidence
has to be weighed and not counted. The test is whether the
evidence as a ring of truth is cogent, credible, trust worthy
and reliable.
50. Further in a reported ruling (2001) 6 SCC 71
State of Himachala Pradesh VS Gnan Chand, it has been
ruled that non examination of material witnesses is again
not a mathematical formula for discarding the weight of
testimony available on record howsoever natural, trust
worthy and convincing it may be. The charge of withholding
a material witness from the court leveled against the
76 CC1271/2007
prosecution should be examined in the background of the
facts and circumstances of each case, so as to find whether
the witness are available for being examining in the court
and were yet with held by the prosecution.
51. It has been held in another ruling reported in
(2001) 6 SCC 145 Takhaji Hiraji V/S Thakore Kuber
Singh Chaman Singh, it has been held that if already
overwhelming evidence is available and examination of other
witnesses only be a repetition or duplication of the evidence
already adduced, non examination of such other witnesses
may not be material. In such as case the court ought to
scrutinize the worth of the evidence already adduced. It is
further held that the court of facts must ask itself whether
in the facts and circumstances of the case it was necessary
to examine such other witnesses, and if so whether such
witness was available to be examined and yet was being
withheld from the court? If answer be positive then only a
question of withdrawing adverse inference may arise. If the
witness already examined are reliable and testimony coming
from their mouth is unimpeachable, the court can safely act
76 CC1271/2007
upon it, uninfluenced by the factum of non examination of
other witnesses.
52. The principle laid down in all the afore quoted
rulings aptly applicable to the present case. As it is
discussed above the prosecution got examined PW1 to 5
who are the vicitms, eye witness and parent of the victims.
But the prosecution could not examined CW4 to 6, 9 to 12
who are the friends and class mates of the victims and also
CW12 who is the class teacher. If the prosecution might
have examined those witness, their evidence may be similar
to the evidence given by the victim and eye witness. The
prosecution has examined the victim and another
independent eye witnesses which is trust worthy to relay
upon in order to conclude about the act of the accused.
Therefore merely on the ground that non examination of
aforesaid witnesses adverse inference could not be drawn
and the case of the prosecution cannot be doubted.
Therefore The said argument of the counsel for accused is
not sustainable.
76 CC1271/2007
53. The accused counsel in his written argument has
also pointed out that the PW5 has given admission that the
accused is a strict principal and he was very strict with
school administration, therefore there is no chance of
committing the said act by the accused. The counsel for
accused has pointed out the admission made by PW5 who is
the student and friend of the victims. No doubt the PW5 in
his cross examination dated 15072017 has admitted that
the accused is a strict principal and was giving punishment
if there is any wrong committed by the students. Even
though the PW5 has given said admission but it cannot be
completely ruled out that a strict person may not act as
alleged by the victims. Therefore merely the accused is a
strict principle it cannot be concluded that the accused had
not acted indecently as alleged by the victims. The victims
have categorically deposed about the indicent act of the
accused and therefore merely on the basis of said admission
that the accused is a strict person, it cannot be concluded
that the accused had not committed said act when there is
credible evidence adduced by the prosecution. Therefore the
said argument of the counsel for accused is not sustainable.
76 CC1271/2007
54. The counsel for accused has further stated in his
argument about the defect in the framing of charge. It has
been stated in the argument that the offence which are
allegedly committed in the train beyond the limits of
Bangalore during travel to Delhi and from Delhi to
Bangalore cannot be investigated and charge sheet could
not be filed by police office in Bangalore and this court got
no jurisdiction to try the said offences. Further it has been
held that the offence which are allegedly committed during
North India trour cannot be set to be the continuation of act
of accused which have already been taken place in said
St.Claret school. The alleged offences which distinct and
different from the alleged commission of the offences at the
premises of said school. It is further stated in the written
argument that the offences which are allegedly committed
during North Indian tour between 15092016 and 2509
2016 at undisclosed places while the train was moving and
when the train was not within the jurisdiction of Bangalore,
the said offences are district and different from the alleged
commission of offences at the premises of said St.Claret
school. Further the court should not have taken cognizance
76 CC1271/2007
for the offences alleged to have been taken place during
North India tour.
55. On careful perusal of the allegation made against
the accused, the alleged act of accused was started when
the victim was in 9th standard, the same was continued in
10th standard. Thereafter during North Indian tour on 15
092006 and 25092006 and also continued after
returning from the said tour. On perusal of avernaments
made in the complaint and also the evidence adduced by the
victim and other eye witnesses, it is clear that the act
alleged against the accused is continuing in nature.
56. As per the section 178 of Cr.P.C whether an
offence is a continuing one or continues to be committed in
more local areas, one, it may be enquired into or tried by a
court having a jurisdiction over any of such local areas.
From careful reading of said section, it is clear that when an
offence is continuing one or continues to be committed in
more local areas or whether it consists of several acts done
in different local areas then the court having jurisdiction
76 CC1271/2007
over any of such local areas got jurisdiction to try the
offences. Therefore by applying the said section to the
present case, as it is stated above the act of the accused was
started when the victim was in 9 th standard, the same was
continued in 10th standard as well as during North India
tour and also after returning from the said tour. Therefore
the act of the accused is continuing in nature and even
though the accused has committed the sexual harassment
to the victim when she went for North India tour, this court
got every jurisdiction to try the said offences since the said
offence is continuing in nature. Therefore the said argument
of the counsel for accused is not sustainable.
57. It is also the argument of the counsel for accused
that court shouldnot have framed charge relating to the
alleged offence committed during North India tour. The
counsel for accused has also drawn the attention of this
court over section 218 to 220 of Cr.P.C. As it is discussed
above the allegation made against the accused is continuing
in nature and as per section 220 of Cr.P.C if any one series
of acts so connected together as to form the same
76 CC1271/2007
transaction, more offences than one are committed by the
same person, he may be charged with tried at one trial for
every such offence. As per said section it is clear that when
the series of acts are connected each other which forms the
same transaction and committed by the same person then
he may be charged with and tried for the said offences at
one trial. As it is stated above the allegation made against
the accused is series in nature which connected each other
and committed in same transaction and therefore by
applying the said section there is no any defect in framing
charge against the accused for the offence punishable u/s
354, 506 and 507 of IPC which were committed by the
accused right from the 9th standard wherein the victim was
studying and also continued till after returning from North
India tour. Therefore this court comes to the conclusion that
there is no any defect in framing charge against the accused
for the offence committed at st. Claret school as well as the
act committed while North India tour. Therefore the said
argument of counsel for accused is not sustainable.
76 CC1271/2007
58. It is also stated in the written argument that the
father of the victim along with other persons had caused
damage to the said St.Claret school and also Church by
pelting stones and criminal case has been lodged against
several persons. It is also stated in the written argument
that the Investigating Officer who is PW6 has admitted
about filing of criminal complaint against several persons for
the damages caused to the school and also the Church and
the said FIRs have been marked as per Ex.D1 to D9. It is
also stated in the written argument that since the accused
had lodged complaint for causing damages to the school and
church, as a counter blast the present false case has been
filed against the present accused. On perusal of the oral
evidence of IO who is PW6, the accused counsel has
confronted 2 FIRs which were lodged against several
persons and the witness has admitted about the lodging of
complaint by the present accused for the damages caused to
the school and church. Those documents are confronted
and got marked by the accused counsel as per Ex.D1 to D9.
On careful perusal of the said Ex.D1 to D9 it reveals that
FIR no.166/2006. 167/2006 and 170/2006 were lodged
76 CC1271/2007
after registering of FIRs in the present case. The IO has also
filed charge sheet in said 3 FIRs as per Ex.D4 to 6. On
careful perusal of said FIRs and charge sheets which are
marked as Ex.D1 to D9 it reveals that the school authority
have filed 2 complaints against several accused for causing
damages to the school and church and the present accused
has also lodged the complaint alleged that several persons
were restrained him when he came to said St.Claret school
on 18122006. On careful perusal of the ExD1 to D9 the
said cases were lodged after filing of the present complaint
as well as the complaint in another CC no.1270/2007. The
said documents clearly shows about the development taken
place after lodging the present complaint. On perusal of
those documents, the complaint or the victims in the
present case or in CC no.1270/2006 are not the accused in
those cases lodged by the school authority as per Ex.D1 to
D9. Further on perusal of the cross examination of PW1 to 5
the accused counsel made an attempt to elicit that after
lodging the complaint by the school authority and the
accused as per Ex.D1 to D9, the present complaint has been
lodged against the accused but the witnesses have denied
76 CC1271/2007
the said suggestion put by the counsel for accused. As it is
discussed above the said 3 FIRs as per EX.D1 to D9 were
registered on next day after lodging the complaint by the
present victims. Therefore merely for the reason that the
accused and school authorities had lodged 3 complaints
against several persons for causing damages to the school,
that will not effect in any way for the just decision or
conclusion of the present case. The accused has miserably
failed to establish that as a counter blast to the complaint
filed by the accused and school authorities, the victims have
filed present false case against the accused who is principal
of said school. The documents which are marked as Ex.D1
to D9 clearly reveals about development took place after
lodging the present complaint by the victims. Therefore
lodging of said 3 complaints by accused and school
authorities does not comes on the way to decide he present
case. Therefore the said argument of the counsel for
accused is not sustainable. On careful evaluation of entire
materials available on record the prosecution by examining
the victim of present case as well as the victim in CC
No.12702006 and also by examining independent witness
76 CC1271/2007
has successfully bring home the guilt of the accused. The
prosecution has successfully established that the accused
used criminal force on the victim in order to outrage her
modesty. The prosecution has also established that the
accused used word, gesture and act to insult the modesty of
victim who is a woman. Therefore this courts comes to the
conclusion that the prosecution has successfully
established ingredients of section 354 and 509 of IPC.
59. It is also the allegation against the accused that he
gave criminal intimidation to the victim that she should not
disclose the act of the accused to any body and if she
discloses his said act he will not issue hall ticket or
character certificate to the victim and he will also give lesser
marks in the examination. As it is discussed above the
victims in present case as well as the victims in CC
No.1270/2007 have categorically deposed in their
examination in chief as well as cross examination that after
returning from the North India trip the accused had given
criminal intimidation by stating that if the victims discloses
the act of accused, he will not issue hall ticket for
76 CC1271/2007
examination and also will not issue character certificate.
The said part of the deposition of both victims has not been
falsified during their cross examination by the accused
counsel either by eliciting any admission from the mouth of
said victims that they made false allegation. As per section
503 which speaks about criminal intimidation, in order to
establish the said allegation there must be threatening by
accused that the any injury to his person, reputation or
property with intend to cause alarm to that person. By
applying the ingredients of criminal intimidation to the
present case, as it is discussed above the victims in their
oral evidence has categorically deposed that the accused
had threatened them after returning from the North India
trip that the victims should not disclose the act of the
accused and if they discloses the same, he will not issue hall
ticket and character certificate. Therefore by considering the
said oral evidence of victims as well as PW5 who is the eye
witness it is clear that the accused gave criminal
intimidation to the victims by threatening not to disclose the
sexual harassment given by him. Therefore this court comes
to the conclusion that the prosecution has successfully
76 CC1271/2007
established that the accused had committed the offences
punishable u/ 506 of IPC.
60. On careful appreciation of the entire oral and
documentary evidence produced by the prosecution this
court firmly comes to the conclusion that the prosecution
has successfully bring home the guilt of the accused beyond
all reasonable doubt. Hence for the said reasons this court
answers point no.1 to 3 in affirmative.
61. POINT No.4: In view of discussion held on
above points, this Court proceeds to pass the following:
:: ORDER ::
In exercise of powers conferred under
section 248 (2) of Cr.P.C., the accused is
found guilty for the offence punishable u/s
354, 506 and 509 of IPC.
The bail bond of the accused and his
surety shall stand canceled.
For Hear on sentence .
76 CC1271/2007
(Dictated to the stenographer directly on computer, typed by her,
revised and corrected by me and then pronounced in open Court
on this the 29th day of March, 2021)
(Sandesh Prabhu B.)
XXXIX ACMM, Bengaluru
HEARING ON SENTENCE
The convict by name Father Mathew and his
counsel present.
Heard the arguments of counsel for convict and
learned prosecution. Perused the records.
Learned counsel for the convict has submitted that
he is innocent and he is only the bread earner of his
family. It is further submitted that the accused had no
antecedent of commission of any offence. It is further
submitted that the accused may be released on
Probation of Offenders Act.
For contra the learned prosecution has opposed
the aforesaid submission of the counsel for convict and
submitted that the maximum punishment to be
awarded to the convict so that the deterrent massage to
be sent to the society and like minded people be
discouraged from entering into criminal activities.
76 CC1271/2007
This court has considered the applicability of Sec 3
and 4 of Probation of Offenders Act and also sec 360 of
IPC to the convict by keeping in mind the object and
purpose of said Act. The accused being the principal
should mould the behavior of student but the accused
being the principle himself committed such a heinous
act against 2 girl students. If the accused is released on
Probation of Offenders Act, a wrong massage will be
sent to society and therefore this court is not inclined
to extend the benefit of sec.3 and 4 of Probation of
Offenders Act to the convict.
The aggravating circumstance of the case is that
the accused being the principal of a school took the
advantage of his position and subjected victims to
sexual harassment. By considering the nature of the
offence and act committed by the accused which was
continues in nature for a long time, the punishment
must be just in all circumstances. Having regard to the
fact that the convicted must be sentenced according to
law and the need to generally deter others who might be
like minded for committing similar offences. The
primary sentencing consideration here is punishment,
deterrence, both personal and general, denunciation of
76 CC1271/2007
the conduct and promotion of respect for the rule of
law.
The accused is found guilty for the offence
punishable u/s 354 of IPC. The accused had committed
the act in the year 2006 and the punishment prevailing
at that time should be made applicable. Prior to
Criminal Law Amendment Act 2013, the punishment
u/s 354 of IPC is imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extent to 2 years or with fine or with
both. By considering the present age of the accused and
he being the first offender to the said offence,
considering the nature of the offence and circumstances
of the case, it is proper to impose one year simple
imprisonment and with fine of Rs.5,000/ for the
offence punishable u/s 354 of IPC.
Similarly the accused also found guilty for the
offence punishable u/s 509 of IPC and prior to the
criminal law Amendment Act 2013 the punishment for
the offence committed u/s 509 of IPC is simple
imprisonment for a term which may extent to 1 year or
with fine or with both. By considering the nature of the
offence and circumstances of the case, it is proper to
impose 6 months imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/
for offence punishable u/s 509 of IPC.
76 CC1271/2007
Further the accused is also found guilty for the
offence punishable u/s 506 of IPC and the punishment
for criminal intimidation u/s 506 of IPC is punishable
with imprisonment either discrimination for a term
which may extend to 2 years, or with fine or with both.
The accused not only committed the sexual harassment
and also gave criminal intimidation not to disclose his
said act. By considering the said fact and
circumstances of the case, it is proper to impose 6
months simple imprisonment and fine of Rs.3,000/ for
the offence punishable u/s 506 of IPC. Considering all
the pros and cons, lenient sentence of simple
imprisonment as stated above with fine will suffice the
ends of justice. Hence this court proceed to pass the
following
ORDER
Acting u/s 248(2) of Cr.P.C the convict is hereby sentenced as follows.
For the offence punishable u/s 354 of IPC, the convict is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 1 year with fine of Rs.5,000/. In default to pay the fine amount the convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months.
76 CC1271/2007For the offence punishable u/s 509 of IPC, the convict is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and shall pay a fine of RS.5,000/. In default to pay the fine amount, the convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months.
For the offence punishable u/s 506 of IPC, the convict is sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for 6 months and shall pay a fine of Rs.3,000/. In default to pay the fine amount, the convict shall undergo simple imprisonment for 1 months.
Out of total fine amount of Rs.13,000/ a fine amount of Rs.10,000/ shall be paid as compensation to the victim who is PW2 (Priyadarshini) u/s 357 of Cr.P.C. The remaining fine amount of Rs.3,000/ shall be remitted to the state exchequer after recovery from the convict.
The substantial sentence of imprisonment of convict shall run concurrently.
76 CC1271/2007Let a copy of judgment be given to the convicted immediately free of cost as per provision of section 363(1) of Cr.P.C. The convicted person is also informed about his right of appeal against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence.
(Sandesh Prabhu B) XXXIX ACMM , Bengaluru ANNEXURE
1. Witnesses examined on behalf of Prosecution PW1 : Basavaraju, S/o Kalashetty PW2 : M.B.Mouna, D/o Basavaraju PW3 : Priyadarshini, D/o Muralidhar PW4 : Sharada, W/o Muralidhar Kakshman Dandagi PW5 : Subhash, S/o Prakash PW6 : Srinivas, S/o Erappa PW7 : Vinishya, W/o Haripransis PW8 : Salijosh, S/o Joseph PW9 : Kumar, S/o Devaraj PW10 : Anantharamayya, S/o Daddayya
2. Documents exhibited on behalf of Prosecution 76 CC1271/2007 Ex.P.1 : Complaint Ex.P1a : Signature of PW1 Ex.P2 : Mahazar Ex.P2a : Signature of PW2 Ex.P2b : Signature of CW20 Ex.P3 : Letter to PI Ex.P4 : SMS details Ex.P4a : Signature of PW6 Ex.P5 : SMS details Ex.P5a : Signature of PW6 Ex.P6 : SMS details Ex.P6a : Signature of PW6 Ex.P7 : Letter written by administration of St.Clarets school
3. Material objects exhibited on behalf of prosecution NIL
4. List of witnesses on behalf of Defence NIL
5. Documents exhibited on behalf of Defence Ex.D1 : FIR Ex.D2 : Letter written to PI Ex.D3 : Charge sheet Ex.D4 : FIR Ex.D5 : Letter written to PI 76 CC1271/2007 Ex.D6 : Charge sheet Ex.D7 : FIR Ex.D8 : Complaint Ex.D9 : Charge sheet (Sandesh Prabhu B.) XXXIX ACMM, Bengaluru