The High Court of Bombay at Goa has upheld the conviction of Balkrishna Mapari in a child sexual assault case, confirming the sentence of 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment awarded by the Special Court.
The judgment came in an appeal filed by Mapari challenging his conviction and sentence pronounced by the Special Court last year, in the case registered in 2019.
The Special Court had convicted Mapari under Sections 376(2)(n) and 376-AB of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 5(1)(m)/6 and 9(l)(m)/10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, and Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act, 2003 while sentencing him to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment and fines amounting to Rs 9 lakh approx.
The Division bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Nivedita Mehta observed that the testimonies of the victims, then aged around five years who are twin sisters, inspired confidence and remained unshaken in material particulars despite detailed cross-examination.
“The testimonies of PW1 and PW2 inspire confidence and have remained unshaken in material particulars despite detailed cross-examination... The medical evidence, in fact, lends credence to the case of the prosecution and does not rule out sexual assault. The medical evidence is in line with the statutory mandate of amended section 375 of IPC, which makes penetration to any extent culpable... Therefore, the offence under Sections 9(l) and 9(m) (aggravated sexual assault), punishable under Section 10 of the POCSO Act, stands duly proved beyond a reasonable doubt,” reads the order.
During the hearing previously, Additional Public Prosecutor Somnath Karpe, appearing for the State, argued that the conviction was rightly recorded by the trial court. The High Court agreed, holding that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and that there was no plausible motive for the victim or her family to falsely implicate the accused.
Aggrieved by the order of the Special Court, the accused’s appeal, filed on various grounds, pointed out material improvements and confrontation in the depositions of the witnesses. The Court, however, observed that it did not in any manner shake the credit of the evidence, which very clearly brings out that the Accused sexually assaulted her.
