XXX v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. BABU** **WEDNESDAY, THE 27[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023 / 5TH ASWINA, 1945** **CRL.REV.PET NO. 542 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN CMP 370/2021 OF FAST TRACK SPECIAL COURT** ## **(POCSO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/ACCUSED:** XXX BY ADVS. PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR AKASH S. GIRISH KUMAR M S V.S.VARALEKSHMI DEVIKA JAYARAJ ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, ERNAKULAM, (THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, NARCOTIC CELL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM CITY), PIN - 682031 2 XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX BY ADV SRI.ARUN CHAND FOR R2 PUSHPALETHA M K ,PUBLIC PROSECUTOR THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.09.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Crl.R.P No.542 of 2023 2 K.BABU, J. -------------------------------------- Criminal R.P No.542 of 2023 --------------------------------------Dated this the 27[th] day of September, 2023 ## O R D E R The challenge in this Criminal Revision Petition is to the order dated 01.04.2023 in C.M.P No.370/2021 in S.C No.419/2021 on the file of the Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Thiruvananthapuram. The petitioner is the sole accused in the Sessions Case. He faces charges under Sections 377, 323 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 5(f), 5(k), 5(l), 5(m) and 5(p) read with Section 6, Sections 9(f), 9(k), 9(l), 9(m), 9(p) read with Section 10 and Section 11(iii) read with Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 and Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Facts: 2. The Revision Petitioner is a teacher in the Government upper primary school, Thiruvananthapuram. The victim is a 9-yearold autistic boy who is a student of the said school. The petitioner had allegedly indulged in carnal intercourse against the order of Crl.R.P No.542 of 2023 3 nature with the victim. The incident came to light when the victim child revealed the same to a Counsellor. The statement of his mother was recorded. The statement of the boy was also recorded in the presence of his mother and one Priyanka Panchapakeshan, a Counsellor. After the registration of FIR, an expert panel was constituted by the Child Welfare Committee on the application of the Investigating Officer. The service of a speech therapist was taken to facilitate communication with the boy. The expert panel, after interacting with the child, submitted a report which supported the version of the prosecution. The Police proceeded with the investigation. After completing the investigation, the final report was submitted before the competent court. 3. The petitioner appeared in response to the summons. He filed Crl.M.P No.370/2021 under Section 239 of Cr.P.C seeking discharge, contending that the prosecution materials do not reveal the offences alleged. 4. The learned Special Judge adjudicated the application filed under Section 239 Cr.P.C and rejected the same. The learned Special Judge in the order observed thus: Crl.R.P No.542 of 2023 4 “8. A reading of the entire prosecution records show that the incident came into light when the mother of the child took him for counselling following behavioural changes in him. On counselling, it was revealed that he was sexually assaulted by his Mathematics sir. The counselling sessions in which the boy had revealed about the incident was videographed. The mother of the boy had shown the same to the Head Mistress and the class teacher before initiating action against the petitioner. The FIS of the child was recorded on 27.07.2019 in the presence of his mother and Dr.Priyanka Panchapakesan, his speech therapist to whom he had confided about the untoward incident. After registration of the FIR, the Investigating Officer, in order to get more clarity into the matter requested CWC to constitute an expert panel. Thus, CWC constituted an expert panel consisting of Dr.Indu V.Nair, Senior Consultant, Mental Health Centre, Thiruvananthapuram, Priyanka Panchapakesan, Lecturer in Audiology, Speech, Language, Pathology and Dhanalakshmi G.S, Registrar in Clinical Psychology, Department of Psychology. It is thereafter on receipt of the report from expert panel dated 20.08.2019 where the child had narrated the incident again that the Investigating Officer proceeded to arrest the petitioner on 26.08.2019 and prepare the scene mahazar. It is also understood from the prosecution records that the child was present while preparing the scene mahazar and when he was taken to the staff room for preparing the scene mahazar he pointed to the bathroom, which resulted in the shifting of the place of occurrence. The medical certificate dated 28.07.2019 shows the presence of an injury [linear scar (1.5 cm) on right breast]. The statement of doctor supports an assault. The contention raised by the petitioner that an autistic child cannot make proper communication is also accepted as an argument from the side of the prosecution. It is understood that autistic disorder is a neuro-psychiatric disorder which begins in the first years of life with delay and deviance in social, communication and cognitive development and with restricted repertoire of activities and actions. Autistic children find it difficult to communicate properly, which is one of the challenges the authorities face when there is an allegation of sexual assault on such persons. For such people, referential communication is provided, which means the speaker provides enough specific information to a listener so that the listener knows what the speaker is referring to. This skill is especially Crl.R.P No.542 of 2023 5 important in communicating information not already known by another party as in the case of sexual assault. That is the reason why the Investigating Officer sought the assistance of a speech therapist and then requested for constitution of an expert panel to assess and ascertain the communications by the child. The prosecution records do not reveal existence of any animosity between the mother of the child and the petitioner or between Dr.Priyanka Panchapakesan and the petitioner so as to falsely implicate in a criminal case. 9. The prosecution records also show that the child in his FIS has stated that 2 weeks before giving the statement his mathematics sir Santhosh had removed his clothes and touched his chest, stomach, leg, thighs and kichamony. He has also stated that the petitioner used to teach him alone at staff room and there was hardly any light there. The petitioner used to groom him by presenting him with medly chocolate, sun-feast cream biscuits etc. The child has also stated that the petitioner used to remove his shirt and pants and have made him touch the private parts of the petitioner. The petitioner had also taken selfie with the boy. The petitioner had kissed on the lips, chest and kichamony of the child and had also made the child kiss on his kichamony. In the report dated 20.08.2019 submitted by the expert panel, the child has given a statement that he was made to do oral sex on the petitioner and after a while something like a 'payasam' had come from his private parts. These statements are well founded to sustain a trial against the petitioner as it is never possible for an autistic child aged 9 years to know or speak about oral sex and ejaculation. The expert panel had even made the child do drawing test and made him write in his note book about the incident. These too suggests that the petitioner had sexually assaulted the boy. The statement of the boy under Section 164 Cr.P.C dated 28.07.2019 also establishes existence of a prima facie case against the petitioner wherein he has given consistent statement similar to his FIS and later statement dated 20.08.2019 before the expert panel. Thus, it can be concluded that there are no grounds to discharge the petitioner of the offences punishable under Sections 377, 323, 506(ii) IPC, 5(f) r/w 6, 5(k) r/w 6, 5(l) r/w 6, 5(m) r/w 6, 5(p) r/w 6, 9(f) r/w 10, 9(k) r/w 10, 9(l) r/w 10, 9(m) r/w 10, 9(p) r/w 10, 11(iii) r/w 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 75 of JJ Act. Therefore, this point is found against the petitioner.” Crl.R.P No.542 of 2023 6 5. The order in Crl.M.P is under challenge in this Criminal R.P. 6. Heard both sides. 7. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner made the - following submissions: - (i) The prosecution materials do not prima facie reveal the offences alleged. - (ii) The child, who is autism affected, cannot give any - statement as pleaded by the prosecution. - (iii) The Child Welfare Committee has no authority to delegate its functions to the expert panel. - (iv) The Investigating Officer changed the place of occurrence after obtaining a report from the expert panel. - (v) No convincing medical records are available to substantiate the prosecution case. - (vi) The child has not given any statement as alleged by the prosecution. 8. The learned Public Prosecutor, per contra, contended that the prosecution could place the sufficient materials to prima facie Crl.R.P No.542 of 2023 7 ## establish the offences alleged. 9. Sections 239 and 240 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deal with discharge and framing of charge. 10. The obligation to discharge the accused under Section 239 Cr.P.C. arises when “the Magistrate considers the charge against the accused to be groundless.” 11. The primary consideration at the stage of framing charge is the test of the existence of a prima facie case. The probative value of materials on record is not to be gone into at this stage. 12. The Apex Court in Onkar Nath Mishra and others v. State (NCT of Delhi) and another [(2008) 2 SCC 561] while considering the nature of evaluation to be made by the Court at the stage of framing of charge held thus:- “11. It is trite that at the stage of framing of charge the court is required to evaluate the material and documents on record with a view to finding out if the facts emerging therefrom, taken at their face value, disclosed the existence of all the ingredients constituting the alleged offence. At that stage, the court is not expected to go deep into the probative value of the material on record. What needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not a ground for convicting the Accused has been made out. At that stage, even strong suspicion founded on material which leads the court to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged would justify the Crl.R.P No.542 of 2023 8 framing of charge against the Accused in respect of the commission of that offence.” ## 13. In State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa [(1996) 4 SCC ## 659] , while dealing with the question of framing charge or ## discharge the Apex Court held thus:- “32...if on the basis of materials on record, a court could come to the conclusion that commission of the offence is a probable consequence, a case for framing of charge exists. To put it differently, if the court were to think that the Accused might have committed the offence it can frame the charge, though for conviction the conclusion is required to be that the Accused has committed the offence. It is apparent that at the stage of framing of a charge, probative value of the materials on record cannot be gone into; the materials brought on record by the prosecution has to be accepted as true at that stage.” ## 14. In State of M.P. v. Mohanlal Soni [(2000) 6 SCC 338] the ## Apex Court held thus:- “7. The crystallised judicial view is that at the stage of framing charge, the court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the Accused. The court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the Accused.” ## 15. In Sheoraj Singh Ahlawat and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another [(2013) 11 SCC 476] , the Apex Court observed that while framing charges the Court is required to evaluate the materials and documents on record to decide whether the facts Crl.R.P No.542 of 2023 9 emerging therefrom taken at their face value would disclose existence of ingredients constituting the alleged offence. It was further held that the Court cannot speculate into the truthfulness or falsity of the allegations, contradictions and inconsistencies in the statement of witnesses at the stage of discharge. 16. Section 239 envisages a careful and objective consideration of the question whether the charge against the Accused is groundless or whether there is ground for presuming that he has committed an offence. What Section 239 prescribes is not, therefore, an empty or routine formality. It is a valuable provision to the advantage of the Accused, and its breach is not permissible under the law. But if the Judge, upon considering the record, including the examination, if any, and the hearing, is of the opinion that there is "ground for presuming" that the Accused has committed the offence triable under the chapter, he is required by Section 240 to frame in writing a charge against the Accused. The order for the framing of the charge is also not an empty or routine formality. It is of a far-reaching nature, and it amounts to a decision that the Accused is not entitled to discharge Under Section 239, that Crl.R.P No.542 of 2023 10 there is, on the other hand, ground for presuming that he has committed an offence triable under Chapter XIX and that he should be called upon to plead guilty to it and be convicted and sentenced on that plea, or face the trial. (See: V.C. Shukla v. State through CBI ## (AIR 1980 SC 962) .” 17. In Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal v. Anil Kumar Bhunja [(AIR 1980 SC 52)] the Apex Court stated thus:- “At this stage, even a very strong suspicion founded upon materials before the Magistrate, which leads him to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged, may justify the framing of charge against the accused in respect of the commission of that offence.” ## 18. In State by Karnataka Lokayukta, Police Station, Bengaluru ## v. M.R.Hiremath (2019) 7 SCC 515 the Apex Court held thus:- “25. The High Court ought to have been cognizant of the fact that the trial court was dealing with an application for discharge under the provisions of Section 239 Cr.P.C. The parameters which govern the exercise of this jurisdiction have found expression in several decisions of this Court. It is a settled principle of law that at the stage of considering an application for discharge the court must proceed on the assumption that the material which has been brought on the record by the prosecution is true and evaluate the material in order to determine whether the facts emerging from the material, taken on its face value, disclose the existence of the ingredients necessary to constitute the offence. In State Crl.R.P No.542 of 2023 11 of T.N. v. N. Suresh Rajan (2014) 11 SCC 709), adverting to the earlier decisions on the subject, this Court held: (SCC pp. 721-22, para 29) 29. ... At this stage, probative value of the materials has to be gone into and the court is not expected to go deep into the matter and hold that the materials would not warrant a conviction. In our opinion, what needs to be considered is whether there is a ground for presuming that the offence has been committed and not whether a ground for convicting the Accused has been made out. To put it differently, if the court thinks that the Accused might have committed the offence on the basis of the materials on record on its probative value, it can frame the charge; though for conviction, the court has to come to the conclusion that the Accused has committed the law does not permit a mini trial at this stage.” 19. In State through Deputy Superintendent of Police v. R. Soundirarasu and Ors. (AIR 2022 SC 4218) the Apex Court while dealing with the scope of Section 239 Cr.P.C. held thus:- “61. Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down that if the Magistrate considers the charge against the Accused to be groundless, he shall discharge the Accused. The word 'groundless', in our opinion, means that there must be no ground for presuming that the Accused has committed the offence. The word 'groundless' used in Section 239 of the Code of Criminal Procedure means that the materials placed before the Court do not make out or are not sufficient to make out a prima facie case against the Accused. …...................... 73. This would not be the stage for weighing the pros and cons of all the implications of the materials, nor for sifting the materials placed by the prosecution- the exercise at this stage is to be confined to considering the police report and the documents to decide whether the allegations against the Accused can be said to be "groundless". Crl.R.P No.542 of 2023 12 74. The word "ground" according to the Black's Law Dictionary connotes foundation or basis, and in the context of prosecution in a criminal case, it would be held to mean the basis for charging the Accused or foundation for the admissibility of evidence. Seen in the context, the word "groundless" would connote no basis or foundation in evidence. The test which may, therefore, be applied for determining whether the charge should be considered groundless is that where the materials are such that even if unrebutted, would make out no case whatsoever.” 20. Therefore, the obligation to discharge the accused under Section 239 Cr.P.C. arises when the Magistrate/Special Judge considers the charge against the accused to be groundless that is, there is no legal evidence or when the facts are such that no offence is made out at all and no detailed evaluation of the materials or meticulous consideration of the possible defences need be undertaken at this stage nor any exercise of weighing materials in golden scales is to be undertaken. 21. I shall consider the rival submissions in the light of the principles discussed above. The incident in this case came to light when the mother of the child took him for counselling following a behavioural change. On 27.07.2019, the statement of the child was recorded based on which the FIR was registered. The statement of the child was recorded in the presence of his mother and Crl.R.P No.542 of 2023 13 Dr.Priyanka Panchapakesan, a Speech Therapist. The Child Welfare Committee constituted an expert panel consisting of a Senior Consultant, a Lecturer in Audiology, Speech, Language and Pathology and a Clinical Psychologist. Before the expert panel, the child revealed the incident with more clarity. In the FIS the child stated that Santhosh Sir (the petitioner) removed his clothes and touched his chest, stomach, legs, thighs and penis. The child further stated that the petitioner used to give him presents like chocolates, biscuits etc. The child also stated that the petitioner used to remove his shirt and pants and made him touch his private parts. In the statement the victim further stated that the petitioner had kissed on the lips, chest and penis and also had made the child kiss on his penis. While interacting with the members of the expert panel, the child stated that he was made to do oral sex. The medical certificate reveals the presence of an injury on his right breast. 22. The principal challenge of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is difficult to believe that the child gave a statement as recorded by the Police. It is true that autistic children Crl.R.P No.542 of 2023 14 may find it difficult to communicate properly. The prosecution materials would reveal that statement of the victim was recorded with the aid of “referential communication” which means the speaker provides specific information to a listener (the expert) so that the listener identifies what the speaker is referring to. The Investigating Officer obtained the assistance of a speech therapist and the experts in the panel constituted by the Child Welfare Committee to identify the communication made by the child victim. 23. On analysis of the above-mentioned materials, I am of the view that there are factual ingredients constituting the offences alleged and there is nothing to show that the charges levelled against the petitioner are groundless. 24. Unless the order passed by the Magistrate is perverse or the view taken by the court is wholly unreasonable or there is nonconsideration of any relevant material or there is palpable misreading of records, the Revisional Court is not justified in setting aside the order, merely because another view is possible. The Revisional Court is not meant to act as an appellate court. The whole purpose of the revisional jurisdiction is to preserve the Crl.R.P No.542 of 2023 15 power in the court to do justice in accordance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. The revisional power of the court under Sections 397 to 401 Cr.P.C is not to be equated with that of an appeal. Unless the finding of the court, whose decision is sought to be revised, is shown to be perverse or untenable in law or is grossly erroneous or glaringly unreasonable or where the decision is based on no material or where the material facts are wholly ignored or where the judicial discretion is exercised arbitrarily or capriciously, the courts may not interfere with decision in exercise of their revisional jurisdiction. {Vide: Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke [(2015) 3 SCC 123], Munna Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Anr [(2001) 9 SCC 631)] and Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2018) 16 SCC 299)] }. 25. In Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Pvt. Ltd. v. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2018) 16 SCC 299)] the Apex Court held that interference in the order framing charges or refusing to discharge is called for in the rarest of rare cases only to correct a patent error of jurisdiction. Crl.R.P No.542 of 2023 16 26. The finding of the Court below that it could come to the conclusion that the commission of the offences alleged against the petitioner is a probable consequence, requires no interference in revisional jurisdiction. 27. This Court is of the view that the order impugned is not affected with any patent error of jurisdiction. All the challenges in this revision petition therefore fail. This Court fails to find that the impugned order is untenable in law or grossly erroneous or unreasonable. The revision petition stands dismissed. Sd/K.BABU, JUDGE KAS Crl.R.P No.542 of 2023 17 ## **APPENDIX OF CRL.REV.PET 542/2023** PETITIONER ANNEXURES Annexure I TRUE COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT IN CRIME NO. 1729/2019 OF SREEKARYAM POLICE STATION, ALONG WITH THE FIRST INFORMATION STATEMENT DATED 27.07.2019. Annexure II TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 164 FROM THE CHILD ON 28.07.2019. Annexure III TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE HEADMISTRESS OF THE SCHOOL. Annexure IV TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE TO THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER. Annexure V TRUE COPY OF THE ACCIDENT CUM WOUND CERTIFICATE DATED 28.07.2019 ISSUED FROM THE SAT HOSPITAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM ALONG WITH THE REPORT OF THE MEDICO LEGAL EXAMINATION, CONDUCTED ON CHILD. Annexure VI TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 02.08.2019 SUBMITTED BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, SREEKARYAM POLICE STATION, PRODUCING ANNEXURE V REPORT BEFORE THE COURT BELOW. Annexure VII TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 30.07.2019 PREPARED BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SREEKARYAM POLICE STATION. Annexure VIII TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM, PUBLISHED BY THE DIGITAL MEDIA PLATFORMS, VIZ, ' NEWZ HOOK' ON 17.08.2019. Annexure IX TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM, PUBLISHED BY THE DIGITAL MEDIA PLATFORMS, VIZ, 'LOGICAL INDIAN CREW' ON 19.08.2019. Crl.R.P No.542 of 2023 18 |Annexure X|TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDING DATED| |---|---| ||13.08.2019 OF THE CHILD WELFARE| ||COMMITTEE CONSTITUTING 3 PERSONS| ||INCLUDING DHANALEKSHMI G.S., PRIYANKA| ||PANCHAPAKESAN, BOTH ATTACHED TO THE| ||ICCONS, ALONG WITH DR. INDU V.NAIR, IN| ||ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR DECISIONS DATED| ||13.08.2019 AND 06.08.2019 TO CONSTITUTE| ||AND EXPERT PANEL UNDER SECTION 29 OF| ||JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT 2015 READ WITH| ||19(6) OF POCSO ACT, 2012 FOR ASSISTING| ||THE POLICE IN RECORDING THE SATEMENT OF| ||THE CHILD, WHO WAS ALLEGEDLY SEXUALLY| ||ABUSED.| |Annexure XA|TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT OF THE CHILD| ||WELFARE COMMITTEE ALONG WITH ITS| ||ENCLOSURES, VIZ. THE LETTER NO.| ||CWC/TVPM/11/2019 DATED 20.08.2019 OF| ||THE CHAIR PERSON, CHILD WELFARE| ||COMMITTEE, FORWARDING THE STATEMENT OF| ||THE CHILD, ALLEGEDLY RECORDED BY THE| ||EXPERT PANEL AND THE STATEMENT OF THE| ||CHILD.| |Annexure XI|TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE| ||POLICE INSPECTOR, SREEKARYAM POLICE| ||STATION.| |Annexure XII|TRUE COPY OF THE RECOVERY MAHAZAR DATED| ||05.09.2019 PREPARED WHILE SEIZING THE| ||CLOTHES AND MOBILE PHONE OF THE| ||PETITIONER.| |Annexure XIII|TRUE COPY OF THE EXAMINATION REPORT,| ||PREPARED BY THE STATE FORENSIC SCIENCE| ||LABORATORY AND FORWARDED TO THE COURT| ||BELOW, WITH REFERENCE TO THE| ||EXAMINATION OF SEMEN.| |Annexure XIV|TRUE COPY OF THE SKETCH SHOWING THE| ||LOCATION OF THE STAFF ROOM AND THE| ||OTHER BUILDINGS IN THE PREMISES OF THE| ||SCHOOL.| |Annexure XV|TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT ALLEGED TO| ||HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY DR.CHINCHILU R.V.,| ||GENERAL PEDIATRICIAN, SAT HOSPITAL,| ||THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.| Crl.R.P No.542 of 2023 19 |Annexure XV (A)|TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY| |---|---| ||SRI. SAJEEVAN, THE FATHER OF THE CHILD.| |Annexure XVI|TRUE COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DATED| ||19.10.2019 ISSUED BY DHANALEKSHMI G.S.| ||AND PRIYANKA PANCHAPAKESAN, ON BEHALF| ||OF THE INSTITUTE FOR COMMUNICATIVE AND| ||CONGNITIVE NEUROSCIENCES (ICCONS)| |Annexure XVII|TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT DATED| ||25.03.2020, DELETING THE 2ND| ||RESPONDENT.| |Annexure XVIII|TRUE COPY OF THE CYBER FORENSIC| ||ANALYSIS REPORT .| |Annexure XIX|TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED| ||09.10.2019 SUBMITTED BY SMT. MINI P.S.,| ||THE WIFE OF THE PETITIONER TO THE| ||PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, GOVT. U.P.| ||SCHOOL. CHERUVAICKAL, UNDER THE RIGHT| ||TO INFORAMTION ACT.| |Annexure XX|TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 10.10.2019| ||OF THE HEADMISTRESS.| |Annexure XXI|TRUE COPY OF THE ATTENDANCE REGISTERS| ||OF THE TEACHING STAFF, OF THE| ||GOVERNMENT U.P. SCHOOL, FOR 2019 JUNE| ||AND 2019 JULY.| |Annexure XXII|TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT FILED| ||AGAINST THE PETITIONER ALLEGING| ||OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 6| ||R/W 5(F) (K) (L) (M) (P) 10 R/W 9 (F)| ||(K) (L) (M) (P) 11 (iii) RW 12 OF| ||PROTECTION OF THE CHILD FROM SEXUAL| ||OFFENCES ACT 2012, SECTION 377, 506(ii)| ||323 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND SECTION 75| ||OF THE JUENILE JUSTICE ACT.| |Annexure XXIII|TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT PUBLISHED IN| ||THE MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DATED 27.08.2019.| |Annexure XXIV|TRUE COPY OF THE CRL. MISCELLANEOUS| ||PETITION NO. 370/2021 IN S.C. NO.| ||419/2021 BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT| ||AND SESSIONS COURT-III & SPECIAL| ||COURT(POCSO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.| |Annexure XXV|TRUE COPY OF THE REPORT FILED BY THE| ||1ST RESPONDENT IN RESPONSE TO ANNEXURE| ||XXIV DISCHARGE PETITION.| 20 ## Crl.R.P No.542 of 2023 Annexure XXVI TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.12.2022 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN CRL.R.P. NO. 301/2022. Annexure XXVII TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED 22.08.2019, ILLEGALLY AND FALSELY PREPARED, TO ROPE IN THE PETITIONER, PREPARED BY THE SREEKARIAM POLICE IN CRIME NO. 1729/2019. Sealed cover 20 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 01.04.2023 IN CMP NO.370/2021 IN SE NO.419/2021 OF THE COURT OF THE FAST TRACK SPECIAL JUDGE (POCSO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.