Bombay High Court: The present revision petition was filed challenging the order dated 21-09-2021 passed by the Children’s Court whereby respondent was discharged from the offence punishable under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act, 2003 (‘the 2003 Act’) only on the ground that the victim was 16 years 4 months old on the day of the alleged incident which occurred on 14-02-2021.
A Single Judge Bench of Bharat P. Deshpande, J., observed that the victim was the daughter of the accused and there were serious allegations by his own daughter. The Court stated that if the victim’s statement was considered in relation to the date of starting of such acts which was required to be taken into account for offences under the 2003 Act, then victim was certainly below the age of 16 years. The Court held that the observations of the Children’s Court in the impugned order were perverse and incorrect. Thus, the Court quashed and set aside the order dated 21-09-2021 whereby respondent was discharged for the offence punishable under Section 8(2) of the 2003 Act.
It was submitted that the findings of the Children’s Court were perverse to the record itself and specifically to the victim’s statement. It was stated that though a complaint was filed on 16-02-2021, the alleged incident was much prior to that day and even continued when the victim was a minor, i.e., below the age of 16 years.
The chargesheet was filed by the Women Police Station, Panaji, against respondent for various offences under the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) along with Section 8(2) of the 2003 Act and Sections 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’). It was stated that the chargesheet was presented before the Children’s Court on the premise that the victim was minor and even below 16 years of age at the time of alleged offence, thus giving jurisdiction to the Children’s Court to try the offences including the offences under the IPC and under POCSO Act.
The Court took note of the medical examination report which showed that the victim was the daughter of the accused and there were serious allegations by his own daughter. The Court noted that the last such act was committed on 14-02-2021 but such acts were also performed forcibly on her by the accused even earlier and such overt acts started when she was in seventh standard.
The Court observed that the Children’s Court only considered the incident which occurred on 14-02-2021 and not victim’s statement which disclosed that such acts were performed earlier also, spanning over a period of one year. The Court stated that the Children’s Court failed to consider such aspects and had observed that the victim was above 16 years on 14-02-2021.
The Court stated that if the victim’s statement was considered in relation to the date of starting of such acts which was required to be taken into account for offences under the 2003 Act, the victim was certainly below the age of 16 years. The Court held that the observations of the Children’s Court in the impugned order were perverse and incorrect. Thus, the Court quashed and set aside the order dated 21-09-2021 whereby respondent was discharged for the offence punishable under Section 8(2) of the 2003 Act.
The Court remanded the matter back to the Children’s Court since it was reported that the charge sheet was returned to the Investigating Officer for presenting it before the Sessions Court/POCSO Court. The Sessions Court/POCSO Court was directed to handover the charge sheet to the Children’s Court and the case registered before the Children’s Court was thus restored. Further, respondent was directed to appear before the Children’s Court on 23-09-2024.
[State of Goa v. X, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2990, decided on 10-09-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Applicant: Pravin N. Faldessai, Additional Public Prosecutor
Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Where are we leading when daughter is not safe under father