Maharashtra: Superintendent of Palghar ashram school gets three-year jail in 2013 molestation case

The accused in his defence cited the delay of ‘5-6 days’ in filing the FIR, claiming it to be an ‘afterthought’ as the allegations were of September 24, 2013 and the complaint had been filed on September 30.

“It is pertinent to note that considering the age of prosecutrix (victim) of 12 years, she could not have done anything on her own…it is only when the family member of the prosecutrix that is her mother came to school on Sunday and was told about that incident, the matter was reported to the police,” the court said. It further said that it was in fact, the duty of the school administration to inform the victim’s parents and take prompt action against the accused.

The victim in her deposition before the court had submitted that on September 24, 2013, it was her turn to clean the school courtyard along with another inmate.

The accused, however, allotted different chores to them. He asked the victim to clean the vessels in his room and while she was returning to her room after completing the work, the accused caught hold of the girl and molested her. The victim began to cry and managed to escape. He later saw her in her room crying and offered a packet of biscuits, the victim submitted to the court. She later informed a female teacher at the school and subsequently informed her mother when she came to visit her at the school on Sunday. The victim’s mother approached the headmaster of the school, asking why she had not been informed about the incident. She then approached the police and an FIR was registered.

“Indisputedly, the prosecutrix is (an) Adivasi hailing from a poor family and she had no means to communicate the incident to her parents immediately. Probably she was under fear that she has to complete her education in the said school,” the court observed.

The prosecution examined seven witnesses, including the victim, her co-inmate, her mother and the teacher of the school. The co-inmate had told the court during her testimony that she had seen the accused assign the chore of cleaning vessels in his room to the victim and that the door of the room was closed.

The accused sought the benefit under the Probation of Offenders Act but was refused considering the nature of the offence, the court said. It found the accused guilty under sections 354-A (1) (2) (sexual harassment) of IPC and relevant sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.