SURAJ NADKARNI Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals take exception to the judgment of conviction dtd. 16/12/2014 passed by the learned President of the Children's Court, Panaji pursuant to which she held the appellant No.1 guilty of the commission of the offence punishable under Sec. 509 IPC and Sec. 2(m)(i) punishable under Sec. 8(2) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003, 'the Act' for short hereinafter, the appellant No.2 i.e. accused No.2 guilty of the commission of the offence punishable under Sec. 2(m)(i) punishable under Sec. 8(2) of the Act and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of one year and directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000.00 each, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 1 year each and further sentenced the appellant No.1 in particular to undergo simple imprisonment for a terms of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000.00, in default to undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of three months, for the offence punishable under Sec. 509 I.P.C.

(2.) Heard Shri S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of both the appellants who invited attention to the evidence placed on record on behalf of the victim and the other witnesses and read through the entire impugned judgment to contend that no case whatsoever was made out against the appellant no.1 in particular for committing the offence of child abuse under Sec. 2(m)(i) punishable under Sec. 8(2) of the Act and no offence whatsoever was made out against the other appellant i.e. the original accused No.2 on any count. This was a fit case to allow the appeals and acquit both the appellants of the offences levelled against them. Shri S.R. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor came to be heard on behalf of the respondent- State in both the appeals who fairly conceded that there was no material to proceed against the 2nd appellant under Sec. 2(m)(i) punishable under Sec. 8(2) of the Act. Insofar as the 1st appellant was concerned, it was his contention that there was material at the instance of the victim girl alone pointing out to the obscene gestures made by him and that it was not a case for a reversal of the judgment of conviction against the appellant No.1.

(3.) O would consider their submissions, the material on record and in that view of the matter decide the appeals appropriately.