FIROZ IBRAHIM RAUTTAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein takes an exception to the judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Raigad- Alibag dtd. 26/11/2013 passed in Sessions Case No.165 of 2010 thereby convicting the appellant in Crime No.249/2010 for the offence punishable under sec. 376(2)(f) of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000.00 in default, to suffer further RI for two years and six months.

(2.) Such of the facts necessary for the decision of this appeal are as follows :-

(3.) P.W.1 happens to be the mother of the victim girl. She has deposed before the Court in consonance with the FIR. P.W.1 has proved the contents of the FIR which is at Exh.16. On the next day of the incident, P.W.1, her husband along with their minor daughter had been to the school. The Principal could not imagine that such an incident had happened in their school. Thereafter, they all went to the Police Station to lodge a report. The facts were narrated to the Police. The Police had inquired with the victim girl. The lady Police had also examined the child and personally inquired with her. The victim had categorically stated there also that she was abused by her drawing teacher. The Police accompanied the parents and the victim to the school, they inquired with the Principal, the Police had then called for a register containing the addresses and photographs of all the staff members of the school. The register was shown to the victim for the purpose of identification. The victim had pointed out one photograph which was of Mr. Verghese. The parents disbelieved it and said that Mr. Verghese was known to them and would not commit such an act. Another photograph was also shown to the victim upon which she answered in the affirmative. It is also admitted that upon inquiry by the Police in the presence of the Principal, Ranjana and Preeti, the victim had disclosed that the perpetrator was a drawing teacher of 2 nd Standard who was in the toilet at the relevant time. In fact, her classmate Anjali had accompanied the victim to the toilet. It is also admitted that in the year 2006, the victim had complained to her mother that her drawing teacher is misbehaving with her. P.W.1 had informed the Principal about the same. The Supervisor Ms. Preeti had then advised P.W.1 that the victim has hallucinations and a doctor should be consulted. In the year 2009 also there was a complaint by P.W.1 to the Principal that her daughter is being physically abused in school by a 4th standard boy. In the cross-examination, there are material omissions in the nature of inquiry made by the mother to the victim. There is no averment that P.W.1 had noticed abrasions on the hand of victim or wheel mark bruises on her back.