Bombay High Court Upholds Conviction Of Primary School Teacher For Sexually Assaulting Three Students In Classroom

Justice Kishore C Sant observed, “The evidence of the victim girls is found to be reliable. The presence of the accused is not denied. Though the defence is taken of animosity as a motive for false implication, the same does not appear to have been taken from the cross-examination & statement under Section 313.”

The prosecution alleged that Jadhav, while teaching in a primary school, sexually assaulted three girls, who were in the second standard. The incidents occurred in the classroom, where Jadhav allegedly touched the girls' vaginas and chests after making them lie down on the table and floor. An FIR was registered on December 24, 2021, at Ratnagiri Rural Police Station, leading to Jadhav's arrest, charge sheet, and trial.

During the trial, the mother (complainant) of one of the victim girls, testified about the incidents reported by her daughter and two other victim girls. She testified that on December 24, 2021, her daughter informed her that her teacher touched her inappropriately, but she initially dismissed it, thinking it was a warning for misbehaviour. The next day, her daughter refused to go to school and revealed that the teacher had lifted her frock and touched her inappropriately, an action he also did to two other victim girls, the complainant testified.

The three victim girls provided accounts of the assaults and two male students from the same school testified that Jadhav sent them outside the classroom while calling the girls inside.

Jadhav was found guilty by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ratnagiri, on February 14, 2023. He was convicted under Sections 354 and 354-A of the IPC and various Section 7 read with Section 8, Section 9(c)(m)(o) read with Section 10, and Section 11 read with Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

He was sentenced to a total of 5 years of simple imprisonment and a total fine of Rs. 9000. The fines were directed to be given to the victims as compensation.

Thus, he filed the present appeal challenging the conviction.

Jadhav's defence argued that the FIR was lodged 15 days after the incident, suggesting a false implication due to animosity, as the complainant was the President of the School Management Committee. They questioned the reliability of the testimonies given by the minor victims, arguing that they were tutored.

The victims and the prosecution countered that the delay in filing the FIR was justified and that the evidence presented by the minor girls was consistent and corroborated by other witnesses. The prosecution emphasized the reliability of the child witnesses and the lack of evidence supporting the defence's claim of false implication.

In Rajkumar v. State of MP, the Supreme Court found that the testimony of a 10-year-old eyewitness was reliable as the child understood and answered questions accurately. The accused had not provided any substantial defence under Section 313, merely claiming false implication without explanation. Further, the accused did not deny his presence at the school on the date of the incident.

This judgment is applicable to the current case, where the accused also did not deny being present at the school, the court said.

In Balaji s/o Dashrath Mundhe v. State of Maharashtra & Ors, the Aurangabad Bench observed that the victim's testimony clearly established the accused's actions, with no evidence supporting the defence's claim of false implication. The lack of specific details about the incident did not undermine the prosecution's case, as the witnesses' evidence was sufficient to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The court found all these judgments relevant and applicable to the present case. The court deemed evidence from the victim girls reliable and noted that the accused did not deny his presence at the school.

The court noted that the minor victims' evidence was consistent and corroborated by other witnesses, including the male students who were sent outside the classroom. The defence's argument of a false implication due to school management disputes was not supported by the cross-examination or Jadhav's statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, the court noted.

The court found no reason to interfere with the Trial Court's judgment and dismissed the appeal.

Advocates Rajesh Khobragade, Vinay Khobragade, Raj Gupta, Sapna Khobragade, Rahul Yadav, Akash Tayade & Ayesha Qureshi represented the Appellant.

APP AR Patil, APP for the Respondent/State.

Senior Advocates Sanjog Parab a/w Advocates Mohan Rao, Sulabha V Rane, Sakshi Baadkar represented the three minor victims.

Case no. – Criminal Appeal No. 595 of 2023

Case Title – Ramesh Ratan Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

Click Here To Read/Download Order