Among the major reasons for the acquittal are delay in filing the complaint and the lack of clinching evidence.
Kumar Thakur, a former principal of a Kendriya Vidyalaya in Bengaluru who was accused of sexually harassing multiple girl students at his school, was acquitted in the case on April 16 by a Bengaluru court. Finding the case against him weak, the court acquitted him and said that the case was a result of a conspiracy born out of professional jealousy from some of his peers. The case against Kumar Thakur came to light in January 2017. He was accused of calling Class 10 and 12 girl students into his office and asking them lewd and personal questions. He was also accused of sexually harassing teachers, and sending lewd WhatsApp messages. The controversy intensified further when he was removed from his position at the Bengaluru school, but transferred to a school in Karwar and then to another in Tiruvannamalai in Tamil Nadu. After parents protested, he was removed from there as well, and suspended. Kumar Thakur was charged under section 354(A) (sexual harassment) of the IPC and sections 11 and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Additional city civil and sessions judge Justice Susheela acquitted him of all charges on April 16. Among the major reasons, per the judgment of which TNM has a copy, are delay in filing the complaint and the lack of clinching evidence. The judge ruled in the favour of the defence who said that the school’s Vice Principal Bhagya Lakshmi and two teachers, Geetha and Ullas, colluded to sabotage Kumar Thakur’s career using a POCSO case due to professional jealousy. Delay in filing complaint The alleged incident took place on December 26, 2016, according to the complainant, Nidhi*, a Class 12 student, who was attending a residential camp course. She said she had gone to the principal’s office when Thakur asked her if she had a boyfriend, asked her about whether she had sex, and even told her to use sex toys for relaxation. On January 14, 2017, Nidhi's family contacted Childline regarding the matter. The court said that this delay raised doubts about the occurrence of the harassment itself. Further, it also found fault with the fact that while the Childline official filed a police complaint on January 25, 2017, it was not registered until five days later on January 30. Incidentally, it has been documented that in many cases of sexual abuse, the delay in filing a complaint is caused by the capability of the survivor and their kin to come to terms with the abuse, the willingness of the police and so on. Failure of IO to follow process The investigating officer (IO) in the case failed to follow the due process. The IO admitted that she did not record the statements of the independent persons – a social worker, Nidhi’s sister and the Childline official – immediately after receiving the complaint. “When such being the case, it is the duty of the Investigation Officer to record their statements immediately, but she has not done so. […] If this piece of evidence is taken into consideration, it crystallises about the latches in the investigation conducted by this witness and it creates doubt about the offences alleged against accused (sic),” the court observed. Further, the process was also not properly followed while recording Nidhi’s statement before the magistrate. Survivor did not inform parents Sexual violence is a difficult subject to speak about, even to near and dear ones. However, the court felt that the fact that neither Nidhi nor her siblings informed their parents about the sexual harassment raised doubts about its veracity. In the same vein, the court also scrutinised the fact that there was no complaint given to the school’s Grievance Committee. However, Nidhi’s sister had said in her testimony that she and students in general were not aware of who to approach to complain about a teacher. Lack of CCTV footage, not questioning security person It was noted that though there were CCTV cameras outside the principal’s office, the prosecution had failed to submit footage showing that Nidhi had gone into Kumar Thakur’s office at the given time. Further, they had also failed to question the security-person-cum-attender who was present outside the principal’s office. The security- person-cum-attender was also not listed as a chargesheet witness. “Non-production of this material evidence, it is absolutely fatal to the case of prosecution,” the court said. Collusion against the principal by colleagues The defence had argued that the Vice Principal, Bhagya Lakshmi, and teachers Geetha and Ullas, had colluded together to influence Nidhi to give a complaint against Kumar Thakur. The defence said that the complaint in January 2017 came around the same time that Thakur was selected to go for an International Principals Conference in February 2017. The collusion and plan, it was argued, was a result of professional jealousy. The court noted that Nidhi and her sister met Bhagya Lakshmi and Geetha at a restaurant. According to the defence, the teachers influenced them and told them to file a complaint against the principal in exchange for getting good marks in the practical examinations.
Body 2:
from Karnataka http://bit.ly/2Lwd1lX
via IFTTT
No comments:
Post a Comment