Mumbai court sentences teacher to 20 years in jail for raping minor student

A Mumbai court recently sentenced a 35-year-old teacher to twenty years of rigorous imprisonment for raping a 9-year-old student of his [State of Maharashtra v. Salman Ansari]..Special Judge Seema Jadhav said that given its power to influence young minds, teaching is the only career that influences other professions and, hence, a teacher is expected to act as a protector."The accused is not a layman but a teacher. The only career that influences other profession is teaching. It has to power to influence young people's future for benefit of future generations. Hence, the teacher is expected to act as a protector," the Court said.However, the act of the accused left a permanent scar of the survivor, and he does not deserve leniency, the Court ruled."The offence has been committed by the accused when the child has just started to live and understand her life. Crimes like this, by a person of trust changes the perception of child to look forward towards life in a positive way. Therefore the accused deserves no leniency," the single-judge stated..As per the complaint, the survivor used to visit the accused everyday to study Quran in Arabic and in May 2019, he sexually assaulted her and threatened her with dire consequences if she told anybody of the incident.Special Public Prosecutor (SPP) Veena Shelar stated that the survivor's testimony was consistent with the prosecution's case as well as the statement recorded under section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and was not shattered in cross examination. Rest of the prosecution witnesses, although formal witnesses, also supported the prosecution, she stated.The SPP said that the accused had failed to rebut the presumptions laid down under section 29 and 30 of Protection Of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) Act and that the evidence on record proved his guilt to the hilt. .On the other hand, advocate Shabana Sayyed for the accused contended that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove his guilt for the following reasons:The survivor's statement was recorded after 15 days of the registration of the complaintSince the informant and her family were not Indians and were residing here illegally, POCSO Act is not applicable to them.There was a communal dispute between the sects of the accused and the survivor and in order to close his Madrassa, he was falsely implicated in the case.The spot of the incident was not proved as there was no evidence to show that the accused was running classes in the shop mentioned in the complaint. .The Court said that mere factum of delay by itself cannot result in rejection of a testimony. Regarding nationality, it found that the survivor's birth was registered in West Bengal and hence she was an Indian citizen. Further, it stated the the plea of communal dispute was improbable as both parties belonged to the same religion and moreover, no mother would use her child to and put her future at stake by making false allegations.Through witness statements and CCTV footage, the spot of the incident was proved too, the Court noted..It stated that the prosecution had established the foundational facts to raise the presumption contemplated under sections 29 and 30 of POCSO Act and that it was for the accused to prove that he was not guilty.The defense of false implication was improbable and there was no reason to disbelieve the survivor's testimony especially when it was corroborated by a medical expert, the Court stated.Therefore, it concluded that the accused had sexually harassed and assaulted the survivor.The Court, therefore, sentenced him to twenty years of rigorous imprisonment for the offences under for offences punishable under section 376 AB (rape on woman under twelve years of age) of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and section 6 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of POCSO Act..[Read Judgment]