ASHWINI KAMAT
PANAJI
​The recent judgment by Goa Children’s Court in a 2007 case of sexual abuse of young girl students of a government primary school in Bicholim has raised serious concerns over the manner in which the Education Department conducts departmental inquiries, especially into allegations of sexual abuse against government teachers.
Accepting the testimonies of the victims as evidence, the Children’s Court earlier this month sentenced Santosh Bhagat to three years rigorous imprisonment for of sexual abuse of seven to nine year-old girls.
However, the inquiry conducted by the education department dated March 21, 2010 went out of its way to discredit the testimonies of the victims and in the process overlooked the criminal acts of the teacher as described by his young students.
Based on the departmental inquiry report, the director of education on January 11, 2011 exonerated Bhagat from all charges.
When the teacher went on a leave for a few days, a girl student confided in her mother assuming that he had left the school for good. Following this, a formal complaint describing the offence was submitted on December 4, 2007 by a group of four parents to the Bicholim police and also to the Assistant District Education Inspector (ADEI).
A chargesheet was framed under Rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 for outraging the modesty and sexually abusing minor girls of the government primary school between June 19, 2006 and December 5, 2007 and for threatening them with dire consequences if they disclosed the matter to their parents.
The defence officer referred to the teacher’s unblemished service record and the numerous accolades he had received. It was insisted that the complaint had been instigated by a parent driven by a grudge against him as he had refused to sign a subsidy form and had later argued with him over non-supply of academic material to the students.
The prosecution, on the other hand, believed that such a reason couldn’t cause a parent to dare to teach or tutor their children to make such accusations.
In his turn, the inquiring authority pointed out that the charges were framed mainly on the basis of statement of a group of parents and three girl students, who resided in one ward, were neighbours and were even relatives.
The evidence brought on record by the victims through the mothers was termed as ‘hearsay’.
Out of the 25 students, who attended Class I to IV, 12 were girls and the inquiring authority questioned why none of the girls from other localities or their parents had complained about the happenings.
“Even being in a group (of 12), none of them reacted to the advances of the teacher which went on for some time,” the report observed and further questioned why the girls continued to fear the threats of the teacher even after returning home.
The failure of the prosecution to examine male students in an effort to seek ‘direct evidence’ was highlighted.
Evaluating the statement of an eye witness, the report observed that while she stated that she saw through the window as the teacher molested her friend, the girl did not state, among other details, from which vantage point she saw through the window.
The report held that the eye witness did not state what happened after the teacher opened the door and came outside and termed this as the absence of ‘logical conclusion’ in the eye witness’ account.
Among a host of other observations, it was also stated, “It is very difficult to accept that such incidents could take place in a classroom which was accessible to the people or public.”
“Non-examination of the girls or mothers from other localities and even the boy students to obtain direct evidence, it can be said that the prosecution has not been able to prove the charge,” the inquiry report concluded.​
