Skip to main content

HC sentences School Teacher to 20 years for Sexually Assaulting three Minors

 Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court (HC) has reversed the acquittal of a school teacher on the charge of sexually assaulting three of his minor girl students and sentenced him to 20 years rigorous imprisonment, without any parole or furlough leave in the first decade of his jail term.


The bench comprising of Justice ZA Haq and Justice Amit Borkar convicted the teacher, Gopal Janbandu, primarily on the strength of the testimony of the survivors.


According to the prosecution, on December 2, 2017, one of the three survivors informed her mother about intermittent sexual assaults being committed by the teacher on her and two other students from her class, during school recess. The women then spoke to parents of the two other girls and they lodged police complaints.


Jalbandu was arrested and prosecuted. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses, including the three survivors, but on January 5, 2019, an additional sessions judge at Gondia acquitted the teacher of all the charges levelled against him - rape under Section 376 of Indian Penal Code and penetrative and aggravated sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act, 2012.


The survivors had in detail explained their ordeals while testifying before the special Pocso court. But, special court disbelieved them and acquitted the teacher, saying the cumulative effect of their testimonies was that the teacher sexually assaulted them simultaneously, which according to the trial court was highly improbable.

The state government had moved HC, appealing against the acquittal. Acting on the appeal, HC disapproved the trial court’s approach, saying its conclusion was based on misreading testimonies of the survivors.


“This approach of the learned trial judge in disbelieving victim girl of 10 years, in our opinion, is a gross case of perversity,” said HC. “The reason for brushing aside the testimony of the victim, who had gone through the trauma of aggravated sexual assault shows complete insensitivity on the part of the learned trial judge,” the bench added.


HC, on the contrary, found that the evidence of the survivors inspired confidence and was even corroborated by the evidence of some other witnesses in the case, and reversed the teacher’s acquittal. The court convicted him for rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault and sentenced him to 20 years imprisonment.


HC also imposed a fine of ₹1.80 lakh on the teacher, Gopal Janbandu, and directed that the fine amount be recovered as arrears of land revenue from him if he fails to pay the fine amount. The teacher will not get furlough or parole even during the remaining term, if the fine is not recovered, even as arrears of land revenue.


HC also disapproved the trial court’s view that the presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the Pocso Act comes into play only when the prosecution proves its case beyond reasonable doubts. HC said the view was erroneous and the presumption comes into play as the prosecution proves foundational facts.


“This finding by the trial court is based on a complete misconception of law on Sections 29 and 30 of the said Act,” said the bench.

.


LEXIS AND COMPANY

"ADVOCATES AND LEGAL CONSULTANTS"

We are India’s Leading Law Firm

“The firm has always strives to create and implement innovative and effective methods of providing cost-effective, quality representation and services for our clients and will continue to meet and exceed the expectations of our valued clients.”


–    DR ANUPAM KUMAR MISHRA (ADVOCATE, FOUNDER-LEXIS AND COMPANY).


Get in Touch


LEXIS AND COMPANY.

C/O: DR ANUPAM KUMAR MISHRA.

OFFICE: A1B/26, JANAKPURI, GROUND FLOOR,

NEW DELHI,, DELHI, 110058.

INDIA.

lexisandcompany@gmail.com

CALL: +91-9830333388.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

LAW INTERNSHIP AND TRAINEE OPPORTUNITY

  LAW INTERNSHIP AND TRAINEE OPPORTUNITY: LEXIS AND COMPANY, renowned for its excellence in the legal field, is thrilled to announce an exceptional internship and trainee opportunity for aspiring final year law students and newly enrolled Advocates. This highly coveted internship  and trainee opportunity  is a paid position, providing a remarkable platform for career growth and experiential learning in a corporate environment. Eligibility: Only for final year Students and Newly Enrolled Advocates. We are offering a limited number of vacancies, designed for law students and newly enrolled advocates in the dynamic world of the legal profession. This is an immediate joining opportunity, available to candidates who are interested to work in the area of commercial and civil litigation and have interest towards drafting, and legal research. As a team member at  LEXIS AND COMPANY,  you will refine your research and drafting skills while witnessing the meticulous professional conduct expected

Physical Internship & Training Program - Legal (LEVEL - 1)

   Physical Internship & Training Program - Legal (LEVEL - 1) --- PLEASE READ THE COMPLETE JOB DESCRIPTION BEFORE APPLYING ---   Urgent Hiring for: LAW STUDENTS/CS STUDENTS/ FRESHER LAW GRADUATES/ FRESHER CS. Position: Physical Internship & Training Program - Legal (LEVEL - 1) Department: Legal. Firm Name: LEXIS AND COMPANY – LAW FIRM. Location: Janakpuri, New Delhi. CTC: RS 5000/- Per Month. Additional Allowance: All official expenses including travelling allowance for official purposes will be paid from the day 1 of the service with the firm.   We are urgently looking for LAW STUDENTS / CS STUDENTS / FRESHER LAW GRADUATES / FRESHER CS for the position of Physical Internship & Training Program - Legal (LEVEL - 1) for our Law Firm in Janakpuri, New Delhi.   Eligibility: Mandatory Qualification: Any LAW STUDENTS / CS STUDENTS / FRESHER LAW GRADUATES / FRESHER CS who wants to learn as a beginner. Desired Qualification: Any additional qualification  will be pre

The Doctrine of Alternative Danger

  THE DOCTRINE OF ALTERNATIVE DANGER Although the plaintiff is supposed to be cautious in spite of the defendant’s Negligence, there can also be certain situations when the plaintiff is justified in taking some threat where some unsafe state of affairs has been created by way of the defendant. The plaintiff may appear as puzzled or worried through a hazardous state of affairs created via the defendant and to store his man or woman or property, or now and again to store a third party from such danger, he may take a choice risk. The law, therefore, lets in the plaintiff to come across a choice danger to shop by himself from the chance created via the defendant. If the path adopted by him results in some harm to himself, his motion in opposition to the defendant will now not fail. The judgment of the plaintiff, however, is not rash. The position can be defined by means of the case of Jones v . Boyce . In that case, the plaintiff used to be a passenger in the defendant’s train and instruct