PAWAN GUPTA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The applicant is assailing the order dated 01.12.2016 passed by Xth Additional Sessions Judge, Gwalior in Sessions Trial No. 126/2016, by which the charge for the commission of offence punishable under Section 75 (Third Proviso) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (for short, the 'Act') has been framed against the applicant.

(2.) The facts leading to filing of the present case are that the complainant Smt. Shikha Agarwal lodged a complaint to SHO, police station Jhansi Road, Gwalior stating therein that her daughter, aged about three years, is the student of Ramshree Kids International School, Harishankar Puram. On 24.08.2016, as usual she went to school and came back at about 02:00 pm. While she came back, she was weeping. On asking the reason, she complained that in the school one Bhaiya took off her undergarments and inserted a finger. She was feeling acute pain then Smt. Agarwal disclosed this fact to her husband and mother-in-law. On this information, police registered a case at crime No. 294/16 under Section 376 of IPC and Section 5(f)/6 of Protection of Children for Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

(3.) In the medical examination of the victim redness and tenderness was deducted around her anal region and vulva region. Statements of the victim and her mother were recorded under Sections 161 as well as 164 of Cr.P.C. In the Test Identification Parade the victim identified the accused- Deewan Singh, who is the driver of the school bus. It was also found that the applicant is the Manager of the school and he had not followed the instructions and guidelines issued by the Collector, Gwalior with respect to the security and safety of the students of the school. The character verification of the school staff and bus staff has not been done. In the premises of the school sufficient CCTV cameras have also not been installed and after receiving information about the incident the officials of the school did not take any serious note of the complaint and informed that they have searched the images in the CCTV cameras and found no evidence about the incident, therefore, it was concluded that the applicant has committed the offence under Section 75 (Third Proviso) of the Act.