Panaji
The two year-old trial took a drastic turn when the victim, who had then attained the age of majority, filed an affidavit explaining that she is in love with the accused and that she intends to marry him.
She further stated that her deposition before the Court was not voluntary and that she deposed out of the fear that her family members would harm the accused.
The victim informed the Court that she does not wish to proceed with the case.
While denying that she had any physical relation with the accused, she said that she was neither kidnapped nor raped by the accused. However, she made it clear that her family is against her decision to marry him and hence, made her depose against him.
Following the arguments by defence counsel Kautuk Raikar, the Court read the contents of the victim's affidavit in the light of the Bombay High Court judgment of 2015 in the Sunil Mahadev Patil case and held that there arises a ‘reasonable doubt about the case of the prosecution in respect of sexual relationship between the accused and the victim during the period from November 2013 to July 2014'.
Quepem Police had filed a chargesheet against the accused under Section 363 (kidnapping), 375 (a) (rape) and 376 (2) (i) (raping a woman under 16 years of age) of IPC, Section 8 (2) of Goa Children's Act and Section 4 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
Public Prosecutor Krishna Sanzgiry argued that on July 13, 2014, the accused kidnapped the victim from the lawful guardianship of her parents at Molcornem and took her to his native place at Godivajor, Orissa and that he raped her between November 2013 and July 2014 at Molcornem.
The accused was employed as a mason. As per the victim's statement, they used to speak on phone everyday and she later forced him to accept her proposal for marriage. She left her home voluntarily and they boarded a train to Orissa. Upon reaching his native home on July 15, 2014, Orissa Police arrested the boy.
The Court has pointed out several irregularities in the police investigation and also noted that the medical report as well as the report of Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad do not prove the guilt of the accused.
