MALOJI NANPPA Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Both these appeals arise from the common judgment and order dated 4th and 11th August, 2006 passed in Special Case No.10/2004 by the Children's Court at Panaji and both were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. By the impugned judgment and order, the appellant in appeal No.64/2006 has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 354 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code, as well as under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003 (hereinafter called as "the said Act") and has been ordered to undergo the punishment for 3 months and a fine of Rs.500/- on account of the offence punishable under Section 354 of IPC one month Simple Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.200/- for the offence punishable under Section 509 IPC and to suffer Simple Imprisonment for 3 months and a fine of Rs.2,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 8(2) of the said Act. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred the appeal No.64/2006. On the other hand, being dissatisfied with the punishment of fine to the extent of 2,000/- in spite of being convicted under Section 8(2) of the said Act, the State has filed the appeal No.71/2006.

(2.) The appellant accused was a teacher at the Primary School at Malpan in Satari Taluka at the relevant time. The F.I.R. came to be registered on 12th November, 2003 at Valpoi Police Station complaining of outraging modesty of and being subjected to sexual abuse, a minor girl of 8 years of age studying in 3rd standard in the primary school in the village by the accused-appellant under the pretext of teaching the said girl along with other students in the school. Pursuant to the said FIR, the investigation was conducted and the chargesheet came to be filed against the accused-appellant wherein the prosecution examined 10 witnesses including the victim. The Children's Court, on analysis of the evidence on record, passed the impugned judgment and order.

(3.) The judgment is sought to be challenged by the accused on the ground that the case put forth by the prosecution appears to be totally improbable taking into consideration the materials on record. In that regard, it is sought to be contended that the timing as regards the incident in question is concerned, there is no uniformity in the statements of the witnesses. Different versions have been given regarding the incident, as well as regarding the conversation between the accused and the victim by the different witnesses. There is also discrepancy as regards the exact place of the scene of offence is concerned and even the testimony of the so called eye witnesses on this aspect do not find corroboration. It is further sought to be contended on behalf of the appellant-accused that strangely, the close relations of the victim themselves were the panchas for the scene of offence panchanama and there is no explanation forth coming from the investigating agency as to why the independent panchas could not be procured for such panchanamas. It is also sought to be argued that the competency test, before the school children were examined in the matter, was not properly conducted, more particularly in view of the fact that the evidence on record discloses that the Villagers had previously discussed the matter and only thereafter had filed the complaint against the accused. This, according to the learned Counsel appearing for the accused, assumes importance considering the various defects which can be pointed out in relation to the investigation as well as failure on the part of the prosecution to place before the Court the cogent materials which could establish the charges against the accused.