MALOJI PATIL 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 Sections 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 charge- sheet 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 testimony of PW.1 discloses that he is the father of the said girl and is the complainant in the mater. He has narrated in his testimony that on 10.11.03, her daughter, the said girl had attended the school upto 1 p.m. At about 7 p.m. when he returned home, after his work, his wife told him that her daughter had narrated the incident which took place in her school and the same related to sex abuses by the appellant who was the teacher of the said girl, and that the accused had forced his daughter to touch his private part, as also he had removed her underwear. After consulting the people in the village, he filed the complaint against the appellant-accused. He has also stated that he got the confirmation regarding the said incident from some of the girls studying in the same school and he had also made a representation to A.D.E.I. Valpoi Satari on 14.11.03, along with 21 other persons and meanwhile, he had filed the complaint to the police on 12.11.03. In the course of cross- examination he had admitted that Sadashiv Gaonkar to whom he had consulted about the incident before making the representation, is his cousin brother and the said Sadashiv had contested the Panchayat elections prior to the incident and he was defeated in the said elections. He has expressed his ignorance about feud having developed between Sadashiv and the accused on account of the said election result. It was suggested to the witness that the accused had supported the opponent of Sadashiv, which was also denied by the witnesses.