Read Time: 04 minutes
Additional Public Prosecutor Pravim Faldesai argued that a complaint was filed on 16.02.2021, the alleged incident was much before that day and even continued when the victim was minor, i.e. below the age of 16
The Bombay High Court has recently reversed an order of a sessions court directing the closure of a POCSO case against a father who was booked for sexually assaulting his daughter.
A single judge bench of Justice Bharat Deshpande was hearing an appeal filed by the State of Goa challenging the order passed by the Children's Court whereby the father was discharged from the offence punishable under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children's Act.
The father was discharged only on the ground that the victim was 16 years 4 months old on the day of the alleged incident which occurred on 14.02.202.
Additional Public Prosecutor Pravim Faldesai argued that a complaint was filed on 16.02.2021, the alleged incident was much before that day and even continued when the victim was minor, i.e. below the age of 16.
Faldesai added that the Children's Court completely lost sight of such a statement which would go to show that the overt act of the accused started much before the date when the complaint was lodged and which started when the victim was in the Seventh Standard and probably about a year or so before the alleged incident.
The bench in its order recorded that, “The statement recorded by the investigating agency on 16.02.2021 would clearly reveal that the last such act was committed on 14.02.2021. However, thereafter, the victim has narrated that such acts were performed on her forcibly by the accused even on earlier occasions. She has narrated the details and stated that such overt acts started when she was in the Seventh Standard. She also disclosed that she left school about a year back,” the order reads.
Therefore, while setting aside the order the bench said that if said statement is taken into account as the date of starting of such acts which is required to be taken into account as offences under the Children's Act, the victim was certainly below the age of 16 years.
Accordingly, the bench quashed the order passed by the court and remanded back the matter to the Children’s court
Case title: State of Goa vs X
Please Login or Register
