The Madras High Court has set aside the conviction as well as two years of rigorous imprisonment imposed by a lower court on the teacher of a school run by Sevalaya Trust in Tiruvallur district. The court held that physics teacher Palanichamy had been convicted erroneously for molesting a Class IX girl in August 2006.
Allowing a revision petition, Justice V. Bharathidasan said even though the prosecution had failed to prove its case, a judicial magistrate in Tiruvallur had convicted the petitioner and an additional sessions judge had upheld it.
The judge pointed out that the victim’s mother who had lodged a private complaint, about 22 months after the alleged incident, had admitted in her cross examination that the entire legal expenses for the case were borne by an individual named Rajesh who was a close relative of Sreenivasa Rajagopal, a former donor turned foe of Sevalaya Trust.
Unbelievable accounts
“This would clearly reveal the active involvement of Prosecution Witness 11 (Rajesh) against the school management,” the judge said. He went on to state that the evidence adduced by the victim’s classmate, who had supposedly witnessed the molestation at the physics laboratory in the school, was “highly artificial” and unbelievable.
The judge pointed out that initially, the Tiruvallur Collector had ordered an inquiry into the incident following a representation by the victim’s mother. Accordingly, the Chief Educational Officer inquired into the matter and submitted a report to the Collector stating that no such incident had taken place in the school.
Subsequently, the Vengal police registered an FIR in 2008, on the basis of a direction issued by a judicial magistrate and closed the case after finding that there was no truth in the complaint. It was thereafter, the complainant obtained an order for a CB-CID investigation and got the teacher convicted in 2012.
“In the above circumstances, the delay in filing the complaint cannot be lightly viewed. Besides, the complaint is also bereft of details of the alleged sexual harassment. Even though the complaint stated that two persons, including the petitioner, had allegedly misbehaved with PW2 (victim), no evidence was let in respect of the other person.
“PW 1 (victim’s mother), in her cross examination, was unable to answer for the same... In the result, the criminal revision is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner are hereby set aside and the petitioner is acquitted from both the charges. Fine amount, already paid, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner,” the judge ordered.
