AMOL MARUTI SHERKAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is one more case of sexual molestation of a very young female child noticed by this court. Parents of the tiny tots entrust them with utmost confidence to the conductor and driver of the school bus for reaching them and bringing them back from the school. They feel that their children are in safe hands, particularly when the school bus belongs to so called reputed educational institute like Sinhgad Institute, Pune, and the drivers as well as the conductors/attendants of such school bus are direct employees of such educational institution. The case in hand reflects breach of the trust reposed by the parents of a toddler on conductor/attendant of the school van, who happened to be the employee of the so called reputed educational institute named Sinhgad Institute, Pune. Taking advantage of such entrustment of children to him, it is seen that the appellant/accused had repeatedly committed penetrative sexual assault on the minor female victim/PW1 aged about 4 years who was taking education in Mini Kinder Garten (K.G. Class) of the Sinhgad Springdale Pre- Primary School run by the Sinhgad Institute, by undertaking to and fro journey by school bus no.A7 provided by the school. The case in hand is also an example of sheer insensitivity in handling the complaint of sexual assault on the toddler taking education in the Pre-Primary school by none else than the Head Mistress of the Sinhgad Springdale Pre-Primary School (examined as PW4 before the learned trial court) who after hearing the complaint of sexual molestation of the PW1 - a four year old girl student by the employee of the school, instead of reporting the matter to police in view of the mandate of Section 19 of the POCSO Act and ignoring the penal consequences thereof as provided by Section 21 of the said Act, had advised her parents to first get the medical examination of the victim female child done from the gynecologist. It is seen that the Head Mistress had chosen to file the First Information Report (FIR) only when parents of the victim agitated, when mob of citizens damaged the property of the school due to inaction of the school authorities in the matter and manhandled the Head of the Institute. It was expected of the Head Mistress of the school to keep in mind that the mental and psychological trauma of such sexual assault troubles the minor female child throughout her life resulting in depression, anxiety and post traumatic stress disorder. Sex abuse of a toddler is a peculiar sinister type of trauma because of the shame it instills in the victim, which lasts throughout the life. With this prelude, let us now go to the facts of the instant appeal.

(2.) By this appeal, the appellant/accused no.1, who was serving as School Bus Attendant with Sinhgad Springdale Pre- Primary School, Pune, is challenging the judgment and order dated 27th March 2015 passed by the learned Special Judge under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as POCSO Act for the sake of brevity), Pune, in Special (Child) Sessions Case No.158 of 2014 thereby convicting him of offences punishable under Sections 354 and 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, under Sections 3(m) read with Section 6 and under Section 7 read with Section 8 of the POCSO Act. For the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant/accused no.1 is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years apart from a direction to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. For the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, the appellant/ accused no.1 is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years apart from a direction to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of 3 months. For the offence punishable under Section 5(m) read with 6 of the POCSO Act, the appellant/accused no.1 is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years apart from a direction to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default, to undergo further simple imprisonment for 3 months. For the offence punishable under Section 7 read with 8 of the POCSO Act, the appellant/accused no.1 is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 5 years apart from a direction to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months. The learned trial court had directed that all these substantive sentences shall run concurrently. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned trial court was pleased to acquit accused no.2 Vinayak Karande - driver of the school bus, of the alleged offence.

(3.) Facts leading to the prosecution of appellant/accused no.1 Amol Sherkar along with co-accused Vinayak Karande and the resultant conviction of appellant/accused no.1 Amol Sherkar are thus :