Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2 Heard Shri Rahul Kate, the learned advocate appearing for the revision petitioner / original accused no.2. By placing reliance on judgment in the matter of Kamal Prasad Patade vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others 1, Shri Rahul Kate, the learned advocate appearing for the revision petitioner / original accused no.2 vehemently argued that initially the prosecution is obliged to prove the commission of the offence punishable under Section 5 of the POCSO Act against original accused no.1 Shahaji Anandrao Patole and then only the prosecution can file the charge-sheet against the present revision petitioner / original accused no.2 for the alleged offences under Section 19 read with Section 21 of the POCSO Act. Unless and until the principal offence is proved against the main accused, the co-accused cannot be charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 19 read with Section 21 of the POCSO Act. The learned advocate further argued that in the case in hand, as yet, 1 2016 CRI.L.J.3759 8-REVN-69-2017.doc principal offence is not proved to have been committed by the accused no.1 Shahaji Patole and therefore, composite charge-sheet could not have been filed against the revision petitioner / original accused no.2 by arraigning him as an accused with principal accused Shahaji Patole. The learned advocate further argued that immediate superior officials in-charge of the ashram school are not made as an accused by the police and unnecessarily the revision petitioner /original accused no.2, who is Director of the Trust, is joined as an accused for the offence punishable under Section 19 read with Section 21 of the POCSO Act. 3 The learned APP opposed the revision petition by contending that objects of the POCSO Act are required to be kept in mind and there cannot be charge-sheet against accused persons in piecemeal - one of the substantive / principal offence and after result thereof, the another for the offence punishable under Section 19 read with Section 21 of the POCSO Act. The learned APP further argued that mandate of Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act is to the effect that the victim child should not be called 8-REVN-69-2017.doc repeatedly before the court for testifying against accused persons and if contention of the learned advocate for the revision petitioner is accepted, then that will amount to violation of provisions of Section 33(5) of the POCSO Act. 4 I have carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the entire charge-sheet with the assistance of the learned advocate appearing for the revision petitioner / original accused no.2. The charge questioned in the instant revision petition is one punishable under Section 19 read with Section 21 of the POCSO Act. It is, therefore, necessary to quote relevant provisions of both these sections and they read thus :

5. The Bill would contribute to enforcement of the right of all children to safety, security and protection from sexual abuse and exploitation.
6. The Notes on Clauses explain in detail the various provisions contained in the Bill.
7. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objectives."

It is, thus, clear that this is a Special Act enacted for protection of children as per mandate of the Constitution of India as well as per mandate of United Nations Convention on the rights of children, ratified by our country. Keeping in mind the object of the Act, the legislature in its wisdom has enacted Section 19 thereof which casts duty on each and every person who has apprehension or knowledge that an offence under the POCSO Act has been committed, to report the same either to the Special Juvenile Police 8-REVN-69-2017.doc Unit or to the local police. Failure to discharge this duty warrants punishment as prescribed under Section 21 of the POCSO Act. 6 Let us judge the case in hand keeping in mind these mandatory provisions of the POCSO Act. According to the prosecution case, the victim girl child was taking school education in a residential school named as Shri Sant Gadge Maharaj Madhyamik Ashramshala at Gondavale. Being a residential ashram school, the victim female child used to stay in the school itself along with her colleagues. It is case of the prosecution that accused no.1 Shahaji Patole used to work as the Cook in the Ashram School where the victim female child was staying for taking education. The prosecution alleged that on 11th September 2015 when because of her ill-health, the victim female child instead of attending her classes was staying in her room, accused no.1 Shahaji Patole - cook of the ashram school committed rape on her by taking her to the nearby bathroom. This incident is witnessed by Bharti D. Lokhande and Sonia Ovhal - colleagues of the victim female child. It is case of the prosecution that the 8-REVN-69-2017.doc victim female child then reported the incident to the present revision petitioner / original accused no.2, who happens to be the Director of the Trust running the Ashram School. It is case of the prosecution that, thereafter, informant Anjana - aunt of the victim female girl, so also her other relatives, disclosed the incident to the revision petitioner / original accused no.2. However, instead of reporting the matter to the police, according to the prosecution case, the revision petitioner / original accused no.2 insisted the informant and other relatives of the victim female child to settle the matter on a cup of tea in order to prevent defamation of the school. Statement of the victim female child, her colleague Bharti, so also the FIR and other statements reflect the fact that the incident of aggravated penetrative sexual on the victim female child by the cook of the Ashram School came to be reported to the revision petitioner / original accused no.2 - Director of the Trust, but, he insisted for settling the matter instead of reporting the same to the police, in order to prevent defamation of his school.

8-REVN-69-2017.doc 7 After perusal of the material produced before it in the form of the charge-sheet, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Waduj, on 7th January 2017, has framed charges including the charge for the offence punishable under Section 19 read with Section 21 of the POCSO Act, so also under Section 202 of the IPC against the revision petitioner /original accused no.2. 8 If averments made by the first informant in her FIR as well as in their statements by the victim female child and her colleague Bharti, so also averments made by witnesses in other statements recorded by the Investigator under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is perused, then it becomes clear that there is enough material to come to the conclusion that despite having knowledge that the offence punishable under the POCSO Act has been committed in the Ashram School, the revision petitioner / original accused no.2, who happens to be the Director of the Trust managing that School, has, instead of reporting the matter to the Special Juvenile Police Unit or to the local police, insisted the First Informant and relatives of the victim female child 8-REVN-69-2017.doc to settle the matter over a cup of tea. As such, it cannot be said that there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the revision petitioner / original accused no.2 so far as alleged offence is concerned.

10 If the case in hand is compared with the observations made in above paragraphs by the learned Single Judge of Hon'ble Chhattisgarh High Court, then it becomes clear that the revision petitioner /original accused no.2 was having clear perception of the fact that the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault had been committed in his own institution by his own employee on one of the residents of the ashram school, who happens to be a "child" under the meaning of the POCSO Act. Material collected by the Investigator during the course of the investigation indicates that the revision petitioner /original accused no.2 was certainly having the specific knowledge about commission of the offence of aggravated penetrative sexual assault on the victim female child by the employee of the Ashram School run by the Trust, of which the revision petitioner / original accused no.2 was the Director. As per mandate of Section 19 of the POCSO Act, he was enjoined 8-REVN-69-2017.doc with the duty to report the matter to the police. As such, the prosecution has made out a prima facie case against the revision petitioner / original accused no.2 which has resulted in framing of the charge. Neither any procedural irregularity nor manifest error of law could be found in the act of the learned trial Judge in framing the charge against the revision petitioner / original accused no.2.