Latest news with #Bobesh

Time of India

3 IOs in 9 months: How court saw through bid to shield Noida school where 3-year-old was raped; principal, class teacher tried to hush up the case

NOIDA: The special Pocso court that this week sentenced a former pool lifeguard of a frontline school in Greater Noida to life imprisonment till death for sexually assaulting a three-year-old girl during swimming classes in 2018 saw through attempts to protect the institution during the investigation. S o, despite a closure report being filed against the school's principal and the girl's class teacher, it did not escape the court's attention that investigating officers (IO) had been changed in the case three times in nine months. In its order on Tuesday, the court held the school financially for failing to protect the child and ordered its managing society to pay compensation of Rs 10 lakh to the girl within a month. Based on a complaint from the girl's parents on July 13, 2018, an FIR was filed against Chandidas, the lifeguard at Surajpur police station. On July 30, investigating officer Bobesh included names of the principal and class teacher as co-accused. Bobesh's reasoning was that the girl in her statement to police under 161 CrPC had stated that she had informed her class teacher about the incident. You Can Also Check: Noida AQI | Weather in Noida | Bank Holidays in Noida | Public Holidays in Noida | Gold Rates Today in Noida | Silver Rates Today in Noida The girl's mother stated that she had informed the school's principal and she was "threatened by the principal to not take up the matter legally". The IO found these conditions enough to indict the teacher and principal under section 503 of IPC and Section 17 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act and recommended charging them for criminal intimidation, failing to prevent sexual assault on the minor, and deliberately concealing information from police. Bobesh, however, could never proceed with this. She was transferred soon after. The investigation was handed over to Sita Singh, who filed her closure report after recording the statement of the principal on Nov 29, 2018. Deposing as PW (prosecution witness) 8 in court, Singh said the case was sent to her on written orders of the then SSP, Gautam Budh Nagar. "Charge sheet was sent to the court on Aug 25, 2018 by the previous investigating officer against the accused Chandidas. The investigation (against the principal and class teacher) was closed as there was no other action remaining in the supplementary investigation," she deposed. On Apr 1, 2019, the case was transferred a third time to then SHO of the women's PS, Rashmi Choudhary, for a "thorough investigation". Deposing as PW 9, she said no charge sheet was sent against the principal and class teacher due to a lack of evidence against them. During the hearing, Special Pocso Judge Vijay Kumar Himanshu observed that there was undue interference from the administrative machinery in the investigation of the case. "The moment they (school authorities) were made accused, the IO was transferred, and the investigation was handed over to another IO, Sita Singh and Rashmi Chaudhary. They hushed up the matter and filed the closure report against the principal and class teacher," the judge noted. The judge also observed that they had miserably failed to discharge the duty to take care and ensure foolproof safety and security of the student. "The court is not initiating penal action against them, but compensatory liability of the school and management society is fixed. The IOs who hushed up the matter against the then principal and class teacher have to face charges of abetment punishable under section 17 of the Pocso Act," the judge ruled. A key moment in the trial that gave the prosecution's case against Chandidas solid footing was the testimony of the girl, who deposed when she was eight years old. The judge asked her some questions to ascertain her understanding and ability to depose as a witness which included her parents' names, class, the school she studies in, her favourite sport, the name of her class teacher, moves of the elephant and horse in a game of chess, and her father's profession. "The court is satisfied with her reply, and the victim has sufficient understanding capable enough to give the evidence," the judge noted in his order. In her deposition, which was consistent with her earlier statements, she said the incident occurred behind the pillar near the swimming pool, and the person who committed the act was the "swimming pool wale uncle". She said she had resisted by pointing her finger at him. "Then the uncle left. I informed the teacher about the incident, but the teacher asked me to sit and did not call the swimming pool wale uncle. After school was over, I returned home in the school bus," she said, adding she informed her mother at night she had to frequently go to the washroom and felt severe pain in her private parts. The defence had questioned the victim's mother, PW 2, for taking the minor to a Delhi-based hospital instead of any doctor in Gautam Budh Nagar. She was asked if she was a doctor to ascertain injuries and was accused of tutoring the child. The victim's father, PW 1, was accused of using his influence with the head of the department of gynaecology, GTB Hospital Delhi, who was a former neighbour to obtain a medical report supporting their "false case". The court, however, noted that the girl's movement towards the pillar and her return from there was documented in CCTV footage that showed her staggering, almost to the extent of stumbling. "The effort of the defence to prove the improbabilities through deficient medical examination claiming it to be motivated could not displace the presumption under Section 29 of the Pocso Act," the judge noted, citing a ruling of Supreme Court that rape is a crime, not a medical condition, and rape is a legal term, not a diagnosis to be made by the medical officer treating the victim. Having faced pressure from various ends during the last seven years, the girl's father told TOI on Wednesday he is no longer prepared to recall the pain. "When we went to the court, the school pressured us, saying that as long as my other daughter was studying there, we couldn't file a case. But we went ahead anyway. We withdrew our kids from the school the same year and pursued the case. It was a collective fight for the entire family. Perhaps any other parent in our position would have done the same," he added. He expressed satisfaction with the verdict. "Everything necessary was taken into consideration. During the entire procedure, there was a lot of expenditure. It felt like everything - our money, time and effort - was falling apart, but now we are satisfied with the judgment," he said. (Additional reporting by Ayantika Pal) (The victim's identity has not been revealed to protect her privacy as per Supreme Court directives on cases related to sexual assault) Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.