Bombay High Court Quashes Children's Court Order Discharging Father For Sexual Assault Against Daughter On Ground That Victim Was Not Minor
The Goa Bench of the Bombay Hugh Court set-aside an order of the Children's Court, which discharged an accused for sexual assault against his daughter on the ground that she was not a minor under the Goa Children's Act on the day of the alleged incident.
Justice Bharat P. Deshpande was considering the State's revision application against the order of the Children's Court, which discharged the respondent/accused for child abuse/sexual assault under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children's Act.
Along with Section 8(2) of the Goa Children's Act, the accused was charged under Sections 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of POCSO Act for penetrative sexual assault, aggravated penetrative sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault and sexual harassment and various offences under IPC.
The Children's Court discharged him on the ground that the victim was 16 years 4 months old on 14.02.2021, the day of the alleged incident. Under the Goa Children's Act, a child is anyone who has not completed 18 years of age. However, in cases of offence of rape, a child is a person who has not completed 16 years of age.
The State's Counsel pointed out that though a complaint was filed on 16.02.2021, the incident occurred much earlier. The counsel stated that as per the victim's statement, the act of the accused started when the victim was in the Class 7 and also a year before 14.02.2021.
The Court took note of this and observed that the Children's Court did not consider the statement of the victim which indicated that the accused committed acts against the victim on earlier occasions as well.
It stated that even though the victim may have been above 16 years of age on 14.02.2021, her statements disclose that such acts started when she was in Class 7, thus making her a minor prior to 14.02.2021. If the victim's statement is considered as the date of starting of such acts, the Court observed that the victim would have been below 16 years.
“The impugned order would show that the trial Court has only considered the alleged incident which occurred on 14.02.2021 and not the statement of the victim which discloses some acts performed by the accused on earlier occasions, spanning over a period of around one year prior to 14.02.2021…The learned trial Court failed to consider such aspects and observed that on 14.02.2021, the victim was above 16 years.”
The Court held the Children's Court order to be incorrect and perverse. It thus set-aside the order.
It remanded the matter back to the Children's Court since it had handed over the chargesheet to the Investigating Officer for presenting it before the Sessions Court/POCSO Court.
Case title: The State of Goa thr. Women Police Station, Panaji vs. M (Criminal Revision Application No.3 Of 2022)