Chhattisgarh school principal held for assaulting child over ‘Radhe Radhe' greeting
Ila Evan Colvin, principal of Mother Teresa English Medium School in Bagdumar village, allegedly slapped the three-and-a-half-year-old girl, forcibly held her wrists, and stuck tape over her mouth after she used the devotional greeting.
The child's father, a daily wage labourer, filed a complaint after his daughter returned home with bruises.
Also Read: Teacher arrested for obscene video call with minor student
The First Information Report (FIR), a copy of which is seen by HT, said that the principal got angry over the child's greeting and subjected her to both physical assault and public humiliation. It further mentions that the child had injury marks on her cheek and scratches on her stomach.
Also Read: Friend of teacher who raped elite school student arrested
Colvin was arrested under relevant sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act. 'The investigation in the case is going on,' a police officer said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
an hour ago
- News18
Gold dust, hydroponic weed worth Rs 6.4 cr seized at Mumbai airport; two held
Mumbai, Aug 5 (PTI) The Mumbai Customs arrested two persons, one of them an airport staffer, with gold dust and hydroponic weed worth Rs 6.41 crore in separate seizures at the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj International Airport, officials said on Tuesday. The Airport Commissionerate of the Mumbai Customs on Sunday intercepted two persons on suspicion, and found that one of them, a transit passenger, had allegedly handed over 1,510 gm of gold dust in wax, worth Rs 1.39 crore, to an airport staffer, an official said. The airport staffer admitted that he had collected four packs of 24 KT gold dust from a passenger, he said. In another seizure, a passenger who landed from Bangkok on Monday was apprehended with hydroponic weed worth Rs 5 crore, the official said. The traveller was arrested under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, he said. PTI DC ARU view comments First Published: August 05, 2025, 17:30 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Punjab and Haryana HC grants bail to drugs case accused as Punjab Police miss chargesheet deadline
The Punjab and Haryana High Court Monday granted default bail to a man charged under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act case, citing the prosecution's failure to file the chargesheet within the statutory period of 180 days. Chief Justice Sheel Nagu passed the order in a petition filed by Lakhbir Singh, who was arrested in connection with FIR No. 61 dated July 14, 2021, registered at the Khalra Police Station in Punjab's Tarn Taran district. Rejecting the Punjab Government's argument that the petitioner had criminal antecedents and multiple cases under the NDPC Act registered against him, Chief Justice noted, 'In the case of default bail, the Court cannot enter into allegations on merits'. The court ordered Lakhbir Singh's release on furnishing bail bonds of Rs 1,00,000 with one surety of the same amount, to the satisfaction of the illaqa or duty magistrate concerned. In a unique condition imposed along with the bail, the petitioner was directed to plant 10 saplings of indigenous species in a public place and submit photographic proof to the trial court within 15 days. Failure to do so, or submission of false proof, would entitle the State to move for cancellation of bail. While granting bail, the court kept the petition pending, and sought a report from the prosecution explaining why it failed to complete the investigation of such a serious offence within the stipulated timeframe. The case will be listed again on August 28 for compliance. Singh was charged under multiple stringent provisions — sections 21-C, 27-A, and 29 (relating to commercial quantity of drugs, financing drug trafficking, and criminal conspiracy) of the NDPS Act, sections 25, 27, and 30 (illegal possession and use of arms) of the Arms Act, and sections 212, 216, and 109 (harbouring offenders and abetment) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). According to the case details, Singh was arrested on September 6, 2024, and the prosecution filed the chargesheet on March 6, 2025 — one day beyond the 180-day limit mandated under Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) for offences under the NDPS Act.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
Centre opposes lowering age of consent, cites risk of trafficking, abuse
The Union government has objected before the Supreme Court to any move to reduce the age of consent under child protection laws from 18 to 16 years, warning that such a change would open the floodgates to trafficking and other forms of child abuse under the garb of assent. 'Introducing a legislative close-in-age exception or reducing the age of consent would irrevocably dilute the statutory presumption of vulnerability that lies at the heart of child protection law,' the Centre, represented Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, clarified in written submissions placed on record. To buttress its argument, the Centre cited a 2007 Ministry of Women and Child Development study which found that 53.22% of children reported facing one or more forms of sexual abuse. It noted that in 50% of these cases, the abusers were persons in positions of trust or authority, including parents, relatives, neighbours, and school staff. 'The report concluded that children are particularly vulnerable when the offender is a known figure, as the abuse is concealed, normalised, or silenced through emotional manipulation or fear,' the Centre explained. The Centre's position is in contrast to that of senior advocate and amicus curiae Indira Jaising, who has argued before the court that consensual sexual activity between adolescents aged 16 to 18 should not be classified as 'abuse' or criminalised under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Ms. Jaising urged the court to read a 'close-in-age exception' into the law, which would apply to consensual sexual activity where both individuals are adolescents aged between 16 and 18. She submitted that the term 'child' under Section 2(d) of the POCSO Act should not include adolescents in this age group engaged in consensual sexual relationships. Such an exception, she argued, would align with the protective intent of POCSO while avoiding its misuse in cases involving non-exploitative adolescent relationships. However, the Centre maintained that defining 'child' as a person below 18 years was a 'deliberate choice, grounded in the recognition that minors lack the legal and developmental capacity to give meaningful and informed consent in matters involving sexual activity.' 'The decision to criminalise sexual acts with children under 18 years reflects a clear understanding of the vulnerability of minors, the common occurrence of coercion and manipulation in such situations, and the challenges in proving the absence of consent when minors are involved… This legislative position embodies the collective will of Parliament, acting in furtherance of its constitutional duty to protect children,' the Centre submitted. 'The legislative intent is further reinforced by the age threshold adopted in other enactments, including the Indian Majority Act, 1875, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, and the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006… The legal position is again affirmed under Section 375 of the IPC and is retained under Section 63 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, where sexual intercourse with a girl below 18 years of age constitutes rape per se, regardless of her purported willingness,' the Union government submitted. The government said the legislative framework on the age of consent under Indian law was rooted in a clear and unambiguous intent to provide a 'robust, non-negotiable shield' to minors against sexual exploitation. This intent flows from constitutional mandates under Articles 15(3) (special provisions for women and children), 21 (right to life) and 39(e)-(f) (protection of children from abuse) and India's international obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
