A Mumbai special court has held that children view their teachers as guiding light for life and that betrayal of such trust by a Godlike figure through sexual abuse leaves victims with trauma for life [State of Maharashtra v. Lordu Papi Gade Reddy & Anr]
Special Judge Satyanarayan R Navander made the observation while convicting and sentencing two persons - a former principal and a teacher of a special school - to 5 years rigorous imprisonment for sexually assaulting hearing and speech impaired students.
“School is a pious institute. The children trust their teachers and consider them as guiding light for the life. If this trust is betrayed and when Godlike figure himself sexually tortures, no doubt the victims would carry a trauma for life”, the Court said in its judgment delivered on December 12.
The Court convicted a 62-year-old Lordu Papi Gade Reddy (former principal special school for the Deaf and Aphasic) and a 61-year-old Dattkumar Bhaskar Patil (teacher at the school) under Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) and Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code.
The victims, all minor girls with hearing and speech impairment, were in the care and custody of the accused, who had misused their position and taken undue advantage of the children’s physical disability, the Court held.
According to the prosecution, between 2013 and 2014, the principal called girl students to his office, hugged and kissed them, while the teacher showed obscene photographs and touched them inappropriately.
The abuse continued for over two years until multiple victims disclosed the incidents, leading to a meeting of parents and social activists and eventually registration of the FIR.
During trial, the primary complainant and her mother turned hostile, alleging that a social activist had influenced them to lodge the case.
However, the POCSO court relied on the consistent testimonies of another victim and an eyewitness, both minors at the time, whose statements had been recorded with the aid of sign language experts and were found to be cogent and reliable.
The Court also rejected the defence argument that delay in approaching the police showed false implication by relying on the ‘post-incident conduct’ of the accused.
After examination, the Court noted that the accused had used their influence to obtain affidavits from parents claiming their innocence.
This conduct explained why the victims' families were initially reluctant to complain, fearing for their children's education and future, the court said.
“They were afraid of the career of the victims and the other students in the school. Certainly, every parent wants that education of his ward should not be put under hindrance or obstruction and there should not be any disturbance in the school atmosphere,” the judge opined.
The judgment also flagged the tendency of parents and institutions to treat students’ complaints as ‘trivial’ or ‘minor’, especially where teachers enjoy high social status.
Along with the five-year prison term, the court imposed a fine of ₹25,000 on each convict and directed the District Legal Services Authority to grant additional compensation under the victim compensation scheme after noting that the fine was insufficient to address the victims’ suffering.
Special public prosecutor Sulbha Joshi appeared for State.
Advocates Madhusudan D Parekh and Parth Bhanushali appeared for the accused.
[Read order]