PANAJI
The Bombay High Court at Goa has quashed the Children’s Court order that discharged a rape accused based on the fact that the survivor was above the age of 16 years.
The accused, who is also the father of the victim, was absolved of charges under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act based on the fact that the victim was 16 years and four months old on the day of the alleged incident, which occurred on 14 February 2021.
In its order dated 21 September 2021, the Children’s Court dismissed the charges against the accused, focusing solely on the victim’s age at the time of the incident. However, the High Court observed that the trial court overlooked crucial portions of the victim’s statement, which indicated that the alleged sexual abuse started much earlier when she was still a minor.
“The report clearly shows that the rape victim is the daughter of the accused. There are serious allegations against him by his own daughter... the victim has narrated that such acts were performed on her forcibly by the accused even on earlier occasions since she was in the Seventh Standard. The trial court has only considered the alleged incident which occurred on 14 February 2021,” the Bench of Justice B P Deshpande observed.
Earlier, Additional Public Prosecutor Pravin Faldessai argued that the Children’s Court’s findings were not only contrary to the evidence but also ignored key details from the victim’s statement. He further submitted that the abuse had begun while the victim was under 16 years of age and continued until the date of the complaint.
The High Court accepted the submission, stating the trial court’s failure to take this into account led to a “perverse and incorrect” order.
“She (the victim) has clearly disclosed that such acts started somewhere when she was in Seventh Standard, which means, around a year prior to 14 February 2021. Thus, if said statement is taken into account as the date of the start 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. Thus, the observations of the Children’s Court in the order are found to be perverse and incorrect,” the Bench stated while quashing the accused’s discharge order.
The case has been remanded back to the Children’s Court for fresh proceedings, with the accused directed to appear on 23 September.
