Kolkata: Two-year rigorous imprisonment was “overly harsh” for the driver, who tried to molest a 14-year-old schoolgirl in a carpool vehicle, but did not proceed further after the girl resisted, Calcutta High Court’s Jalpaiguri circuit bench held on Aug 20 as it reduced the sentence to one year and directed the accused to surrender in the 12-year-old case.The accused, a carpool driver, used to pick up students from their homes and drop them at an English-medium school in Siliguri. The survivor, along with three students, used to travel in his car. In her statement, she said that on Aug 23, 2014, she was alone in the car with the driver. As the car drew up to a tea garden, the driver stopped the vehicle and touched her “hands and body with ill motive”, she mentioned in the statement. The girl assaulted the driver with a register and he reportedly stopped but threatened her with dire consequences. The survivor in her deposition on June 5, 2015, said “the driver tried to molest and kiss her”.Justice Apurba Sinha Ray held that “attempt to kiss” was not mentioned in judicial magistrate’s recording but was mentioned only in trial deposition and that it could be to represent an “improved version of the prosecution’s case”. “The trial judge erred in giving undue weight to this improved version… RI for two years is overly harsh, given that the driver did not proceed further after the victim resisted. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced from two years to one year of rigorous imprisonment. The fine of Rs 10,000 and its default clause of six months’ rigorous imprisonment remain unaltered,” the single judge held.After the incident, the survivor complained to the principal and her teacher, who informed her father about it. A complaint of sexual harassment was lodged against the driver under Sec 354 of the IPC and Sec 12 of Pocso Act. The driver was initially convicted under Pocso Act but the Calcutta HC set it aside and remanded the case in trial court, suggesting that the case be tried under Sec 354 of IPC. The trial court convicted the driver and sentenced him two-year RI and slapped a fine of Rs 10,000.The accused’s counsel, challenging the sentencing, submitted the driver was falsely implicated by the survivor and her father as he refused her request to let her drive the vehicle. His counsel punched holes in the prosecution’s case, stating neither did the IP seize and verify the school register to establish the survivor’s statement that she was alone with the driver nor were the principal and teachers cited as witnesses. The survivor reported the incident to her peers and teachers immediately upon arrival. “The defence’s theory that she falsely implicated the driver merely because he refused to let her drive is implausible, as no girl would put her modesty at stake on such a trivial pretext,” the judge observed.Justice Apurba Sinha Ray noted the driver himself said he was alone with the survivor in the caron that date. It was noted that while it the principal and teachers were not cited as witnesses by prosecution, but as the incident occurred outside school premises, “the prosecution successfully proved that only the appellant and victim were present inside”. The omission of school officials as witnesses did not diminish the FIR or survivor’s testimony, the judge held.
