Court finds prima facie evidence of assault, threats and psychological abuse
PANAJI
The High Court of Bombay at Goa has refused to quash an FIR and chargesheet against four persons accused of assaulting and threatening a minor boy at a beach in Goa. The court said the material on record prima facie shows offences under the Goa Children’s Act and the Indian Penal Code.
The court rejected a petition filed by Helcino Fernandes, Frank Melroy Da Silva, Augustinho Shelton Da Silva and Jose Francisco Da Silva. They had sought to set aside the FIR dated November 14, 2023, and the chargesheet filed before the Children’s Court in Panaji.
The FIR was registered under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC, along with Section 8 of the Goa Children’s Act read with Section 34 of the IPC.
According to the judgment delivered on Wednesday, the complaint was filed by the boy’s father. He alleged that on November 11, 2023, the boy was returning from a football game at the beach and had stopped to drink water when one of the accused approached him, caught his T-shirt and punched him near the jaw and throat.
The boy also alleged that he was threatened with further violence. The court noted that one accused allegedly told him that “he would break me like he broke my father.” Others allegedly threatened to break his legs so he could never play football again and to suffocate him to death.
Justice Ashish Chavan observed that the victim’s statement under Section 164 of the CrPC was consistent with the complaint and gave a detailed account. The court said the allegations included physical assault, verbal threats and psychological abuse, and that the incident was not isolated, as the boy had referred to an earlier assault.
The court also noted medical evidence supporting the claim of injury. It said the attack appeared unprovoked and planned, not a sudden act.
Holding that the FIR and chargesheet disclose an offence under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act, the High Court refused to interfere and rejected the petition. It clarified that its observations are only for deciding the plea and will not affect the trial.
