MADHU NAIR Vs. THE STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellant is challenging his conviction under Section 2(y)(i) read with Section 8(2)of the Goa Children's Act, 2003 (the Act, for short)'. The appellant has been sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2 Lakhs and in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months.

(2.) The prosecution case may be briefly stated thus: That PW1, who is the mother of the victim (PW2), who was then a girl, aged 6 years, is a neighbour of the appellant. The complainant PW1 is serving as a Sweeper at G.M.C., Bambolim. On 23/04/2009, after the complainant returned home from her duty, the victim PW2 had gone out to play with the neighbouring children. At about 22.00 hours, the complainant called her daughter for serving her food. At that time, the victim was complaining that she is having fever. PW2 also allegedly told her mother PW1 that she has pain in her private part. PW1 on checking found that the private part of the victim was reddish. PW1 asked the victim as to what had happened when she told that one Mr. Madhu (appellant) had put his finger in her vagina. She also informed that the appellant, who was sitting on the steps of a store, took the victim near him, made her sit on her lap and abused her. As it was already late in the night and for want of transport facility, PW1 could not immediately report the matter to the police. On the following morning, PW1 lodged a complaint (Exhibit 9) with Old Goa Police Station, on the basis of which an offence under the relevant sections of the Act was registered against the appellant. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer, PW5, Gurudas Gawde recorded a spot panchanama. The statement of the victim was also recorded. She was sent for medical examination, where she was examined by PW3 Dr. Rodrigues, who opined on physical and genital examination of the victim that there was evidence of penetration and injury. On completion of investigation, a chargesheet came to be filed against the appellant before the Children's Court at Panaji.

(3.) The Children's Court framed charge (Exhibit 8) against the appellant, for the offence punishable under Section 2(y)(i) read with Section 8 of the Act, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The defence as elicited from the crossexamination, is that PW1 had demanded money, which was not given by the appellant and annoyed by that, PW1 has falsely implicated him.