Bombay High Court sets aside juvenile court order acquitting father of sexually abusing daughter on grounds that victim was not a minor

Judge Bharat P. Deshpande considered the revision petition filed by the State against the order of the Children's Court acquitting the respondent/accused on the charge of child abuse/sexual assault under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children's Act.

Besides Section 8(2) of the Goa Children's Act, the accused was also charged under Sections 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the POCSO Act for sexual assault with penetration, aggravated sexual assault with penetration, aggravated sexual assault and sexual harassment and various offences under the IPC.

The Children's Court acquitted him on the grounds that the victim was 16 years and 4 months old on February 14, 2021, the date of the alleged incident. According to the Goa Children's Act, a child is any person who has not completed 18 years of age. However, in the case of rape, a child is any person who has not completed 16 years of age.

The prosecutor pointed out that although the complaint was filed on February 16, 2021, the incident occurred much earlier. The lawyer explained that according to the victim's statement, the defendant's act began when the victim was in the 7th grade and also a year before February 14, 2021.

The Court took note of this and found that the juvenile court had not taken into account the victim's statement, which indicated that the accused had also committed acts against the victim in previous cases.

It noted that while the victim may have been over 16 years old on February 14, 2021, her statements show that these acts began when she was in 7th grade, making her a minor before February 14, 2021. If the victim's statement is considered as the date of commencement of these acts, the court found that the victim would have been under 16 years old.

“The impugned order would show that the trial court has considered only the alleged incident of 14.02.2021 and not the statement of the victim which discloses some acts of the accused on previous occasions spanning a period of about one year prior to 14.02.2021… The Honourable trial court failed to consider such aspects and found that the victim was above 16 years of age on 14.02.2021.”

The court found that the decision of the juvenile court was wrong and inadmissible and therefore annulled it.

It remanded the matter to the Juvenile Court as it had handed over the chargesheet to the investigating officer for production before the District Court/POCSO Court.

Case Title: The State of Goa, Women Police Station, Panaji vs. M (Criminal Revision Application No. 3 of 2022)