Judgment : Rajiv Sharma, Judge This appeal is instituted against Judgment dated 28.11.2014 rendered by learned Special Judge, Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh in Sessions trial No. 11/7 of 2013, whereby accused-appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'appellant' for convenience sake), who was charged with and tried for offences under Sections 354 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 10 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years and to pay a fine of Rs.50,000/- under Section 10 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one year, rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under Section 354 IPC, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days, and rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- under section 506 (1) IPC, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days. 2. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that accused was posted as a Head Teacher in Government Primary School Samtehan since 2007. On 17.5.2013, five minor girl students of different classes complained to their parents/ guardians about the unwelcome sexual behaviour of the accused. Matter was reported to the School Management Committee. Block Education Officer Swarghat (PW-12) conducted an enquiry on 18.5.2013. His report is Ext PW-16/B. Girls on the next day i.e. 19.5.2013 went to the police station. It led to registration of FIR Ext. PW-1/A. Birth certificates of PW-2, PW-4, PW-6, PW-8 and PW-9 were taken. Appointment letter of the accused was also obtained. Attendance record of the victims and accused was also obtained. Investigation was completed. Challan was put up in the Court after completing all codal formalities. 3. Prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses to prove its case against accused. Accused was examined under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code. He has denied the case of the prosecution. Accused was convicted and sentenced as noticed above. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. J.R. Poswal, Advocate has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. 5. Mr. Parmod Thakur, Additional Advocate General, has supported the judgment rendered by the learned trial Court. 6. He has denied the case of the prosecution. Accused was convicted and sentenced as noticed above. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. J.R. Poswal, Advocate has vehemently argued that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused. 5. Mr. Parmod Thakur, Additional Advocate General, has supported the judgment rendered by the learned trial Court. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully. 7. PW-1 Paramjit Kaur testified that her daughter Punit Kaur was 8 years old and was a student of 3rd standard in Government Primary School Samtehan. On 17.5.2013, her sister-in-law Anjana asked her whether her daughter told any incident that the accused had done wrongful act with the girls in the school. She inquired from her daughter Punit Kaur and she told that accused used to kiss and embrace her. She also told that accused used to touch her vagina. Accused used to do these acts on the pretext of checking their copies in the room. Accused threatened her not to disclose anything to anybody. On 18.5.2013, she went to the school where Block Education Officer was present. They went to police station. Police recorded report Ext. PW-1/A. In her cross-examination, she has admitted that to manage the affairs of school, there was a committee. Sher Singh was the president of the Committee. She admitted that Baggo Devi and Gayatri Devi are Mid-Day Meal Workers in the school. Baggo Devi was not her relative but belonged to the village Jandauri. Initially, she denied that she was her niece. Volunteered that she was niece of Baggo Devi. 8. PW-2 (name not disclosed) deposed that name of her teacher was Dharampal. She identified him in the Court. He used to teach her Hindi, English and Environment. He used to touch her vagina. He also used to embrace and kiss her. He used to do these things while sitting in his room when she used to get her copies checked. Accused threatened not to disclose this thing to anybody and he would kill her. Same thing happened to the other girls also. In the cross-examination, she stated that earlier she did not disclose this to her parents because accused had threatened to kill her. All the children narrated the incidents separately to their parents. She denied that she was tutored by her parents to give her statement in the court. Same thing happened to the other girls also. In the cross-examination, she stated that earlier she did not disclose this to her parents because accused had threatened to kill her. All the children narrated the incidents separately to their parents. She denied that she was tutored by her parents to give her statement in the court. No statement was read over to her before giving statement to the Court. 9. PW-3 Shakuntla deposed that Poonam was her granddaughter and a student of 6th standard. 3-4 months back, her grand-daughter told that accused used to touch her vagina when she was studying in 5th class. Earlier she did not disclose the incident because accused threatened her. She alongwith other persons, went to the police station where Block Education Officer was present. Matter was reported to the police. She admitted that mother of Poonam was a Water Carrier in the school. She denied the suggestion that she is not having good relations with her daughter-in-law Anjana Devi. She also denied the suggestion that she took her grand-daughter forcibly to the police station. 10. PW-4 (name not disclosed) deposed that she was a student of 5th class. Accused used to teach her English, Hindi and Mathematics. Accused used to touch her vagina and insert his finger into it. He also used to put his legs between her legs. He also used to embrace and kiss her. He used to do these things while sitting in his room where she used to go to check her copies. Accused threatened to kill her if the incident was narrated to anybody. On 17.5.2013, she narrated the incident to her grandmother. 11. PW-5 Suman Devi testified that her daughter Gulshan was aged 9 years and student of 4th standard. Her daughter Gulshan told her on 17.5.2013 that accused used to touch her vagina. He also used to lay her on the table and tried to untie the string of her Salwar and when she cried, accused gagged her mouth and when she tried to hit teacher with the pen, accused removed his hand and pen struck against her face. Accused has threatened to kill her if she disclosed anything to anybody. She also narrated the incident to Ward Member. A meeting was held in the school on 18.5.2013 where BEO was present. They went to the police station on 19.5.2013. 12. Accused has threatened to kill her if she disclosed anything to anybody. She also narrated the incident to Ward Member. A meeting was held in the school on 18.5.2013 where BEO was present. They went to the police station on 19.5.2013. 12. PW-6(name not disclosed) testified that accused used to teach Hindi, English, Math and Environment. Accused used to touch her vagina and used to insert finger into it. Accused laid her on the bench one day and tried to open her Salwar. When she tried to raise alarm, accused gagged her mouth. When she tried to hit accused with pen, accused removed his hand. Accused used to threaten her. Accused used to do such things when she went for getting her copies checked. She did not disclose the incident to her parents because she apprehended that accused may remove her from the school. She narrated the incident to her mother on 17.5.2013. 13. PW-7 Anjana Devi deposed that her eldest daughter Kamna aged 9 years is studying in 5th class, Deepali aged 7 years is studying in 4th Class and Sneha aged 5 years is studying in Balwari. On 17.5.2013, her daughter Kamna and Deepali told that they will not go to school. They told that accused used to touch their vaginas and kissed them and put his hands on their private parts and also put his legs between their legs. Thereafter, she told her Devrani, Paramjit to ask her daughter. Paramjit Kaur asked Punit Kaur and she told the same thing. They told the incident to Ward Member on 18.5.2013. Block Education Officer came to the school. She alongwith her daughters went to the police station on 19.5.2013. 14. PW-8 (name not disclosed) also deposed that accused used to teach English, Hindi, Mathematics and Environment. He used to touch her vagina and used to insert finger into it and also used to put his legs between her legs and used to put his hands on her private parts from behind. She earlier did not mention this thing to anybody because accused threatened that if she disclosed anything to anybody, he would kill her. On 17.5.2013, she narrated the incident to her mother. 15. PW-9 (name not disclosed) deposed that the accused used to touch her vagina and used to insert finger into it. She earlier did not mention this thing to anybody because accused threatened that if she disclosed anything to anybody, he would kill her. On 17.5.2013, she narrated the incident to her mother. 15. PW-9 (name not disclosed) deposed that the accused used to touch her vagina and used to insert finger into it. He used to put his legs between her legs and put hands on her private parts from behind. He also used to embrace and kiss her. Accused threatened her that if she disclosed this thing at home, he would kill her. 16. PW-10 Karam Chand, Secretary, Gram Panchayat has proved the birth certificates of the victims. 17. PW-11 Hari Krishan is a formal witness. 18. PW-12 Lal Chand has proved Ext. PW-11/C. He had recorded statements of students, guardians and members of School Management Committee. He also recorded statement of girls as well as their guardians. He sent original record to Deputy Director Elementary Education. 19. PW-13 Gurdeep Singh, PW-14 Vivek Singh and PW-15 Raj Kumar, are formal witnesses. 20. PW-16 Jai Gopal took over investigation from ASI Raj Kumar on 20.5.2013. He visited the houses of prosecutrixes alongwith police staff and lady constables. He recorded their statements. He got video-graphed the statements. Accused was arrested on 31.5.2013. Statements of prosecutrixes under Section 164 CrPC were recorded in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Bilaspur. Statements are Ext. PW-1/B, PW-3/A, PW-5/A, PW-7/A and PW-7/B. He obtained birth certificates of prosecutrixes. He obtained appointment letter of accused. He also obtained enquiry report Ext. PW-16/B. 21. PW-17 Ranvir Singh handed over photocopies of attendance register of teachers and students of classes 3rd, 4th and 5th for the month of May 2013 vide Ext. PW-16/D. He also brought attendance register of teachers for the month of May 2013 vide Ext. PW-16/E. 22. What emerges from the analysis of the evidence of the witnesses is that accused has sexually assaulted PW-2, PW-4, PW- 6, PW-8 and PW-9. These witnesses have categorically deposed that the accused used to touch their private parts. He also used to put finger in their vaginas and he used to embrace and kiss them. He used to threaten them if the incident was reported to their parents, he would kill them. PW-2, PW-4, PW-6, PW-8 and PW-9 have narrated the incidents to their parents/ guardians. Complaint was also sent to Block Education Officer. He also used to put finger in their vaginas and he used to embrace and kiss them. He used to threaten them if the incident was reported to their parents, he would kill them. PW-2, PW-4, PW-6, PW-8 and PW-9 have narrated the incidents to their parents/ guardians. Complaint was also sent to Block Education Officer. He went to the spot and recorded statements of guardians and children. He prepared report Ext. PW-11/C. Prima facie case was found against accused. Children alongwith their parents went to the police station. FIR was registered. Their statements were also recorded under Section 164 CrPC. It is duly established by the Prosecution that accused has sexually assaulted PW-2, PW-4, PW-6, PW-8 and PW-9. 23. Mr. J.R. Poswal, Advocate, has vehemently argued that his client has been falsely implicated since a resolution was passed against Smt. Baggo Devi and Gayatri Devi vide Ext. D3. Merely, that a resolution has been passed on 1.1.2013 against Baggo Devi and Gayatri Devi, would not absolve the accused of his misdemeanour. Parents and guardians of the girls would not lodge false complaint against teacher merely due to the fact that some resolution has been passed against Baggo Devi and Gayatri Devi. Mr. J.R. Poswal also argued that there was enmity between the families of Baggo Devi and Gayatri Devi. There is reference of FIR No. 7/2012. Baggo Devi has no connection with the case. Prosecutrixes though minor, their statements are natural and inspire confidence. They have not been tutored by their parents/guardians. Link between Baggo Devi and witnesses was merely imaginary as rightly observed by the learned trial Court. Resolution was only to the effect that Baggo Devi and Gayatri Devi should be more careful while cooking food. Accused has failed to prove that Gayatri Devi and Baggo Devi are close relatives of PW-1 or PW-7. There is no merit in the contention of Mr. J.R. Poswal, Advocate that grand-daughter of PW-3 was forcibly taken to police station. PW-16 has admitted that application Ext. D1 dated 20.5.2013 was received but it was found untrue. More particularly, statement of PW-4 was also recorded under Section 164 CrPC by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Mr. J.R. Poswal also argued that accused had been wrongly implicated since PW-3 when went to the school, she threatened PW-17 colleague of the accused that he will also have to face the consequences like the accused. More particularly, statement of PW-4 was also recorded under Section 164 CrPC by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate. Mr. J.R. Poswal also argued that accused had been wrongly implicated since PW-3 when went to the school, she threatened PW-17 colleague of the accused that he will also have to face the consequences like the accused. PW-3 was 75 years old and there is no occasion for such an old lady to threaten PW-17 with dire consequences. Learned trial Court has rightly discarded statement of DW-4 qua FIR DW-5/A. Matter was brought to the notice of the parents. Parents immediately brought it to the notice of higher authorities, which led to registration of FIR. Reaction of the parents/ guardians was natural and the parents/ guardians have no motive to implicate the accused in a false case. 24. Prosecution has proved the case against accused beyond reasonable doubt under Section 354 IPC, Section 10 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 as well as Section 506 IPC. 25. Accordingly, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed, so also the pending applications, if any