SWADHINCHANDRA HARIRAMJI ZADE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant by this appeal challenges his conviction under Sections 10 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 and under Section 354-A (2) of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and 6 months and total fine of Rs.6,000/- was imposed on him with default clause by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amravati in Sessions Trial No.295/2016.

(2.) The prosecution case, in short, is that the appellant-accused, at the relevant time, was a teacher and was taking tuition of primary students at his house. On 4.10.2016 at about 6.00 pm, the victim and her five batch-mates attended the tuition at the house of the accused. A test of all the students was conducted by the accused. After assessment of the paper, the accused took the victim, aged about 10 years, in the inside room under the pretext that he would show her mistakes. In the room, after lifting the T-Shirt of the victim, the accused sucked the breast of the victim. The victim went to her house weeping and narrated the incident to her parents. Her father took her to the Police Station and lodged a report. On the basis of a report, Crime No.215/2016 for offences under Section 354- A of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 8, 10 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 (for short, the Act of 2012) was registered at Mangrul Dastagir Police Station. Investigation was conducted, spot panchanama was prepared and accused was arrested on 5.10.2016. Thereafter, the statements of the witnesses were recorded. The statements of the victim and some of her tuition-mates were recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against the accused.

(3.) Charge under Section 354-A (1)(i)(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 10 and 12 of the Act of 2012 was framed against the accused. The accused denied the charge, his defence was of total denial. He claimed that he was falsely implicated. The learned Trial Court, after recording the evidence, convicted the accused. Hence, the present appeal.