Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Bombay at Goa, Single Bench of Justice Shreeram V Shirsat dismissed an appeal and upheld the conviction of an 83-year-old man for sexually assaulting a 9-year-old girl in 2012, declining to interfere with the 10-year rigorous imprisonment awarded to him. The Court found no basis to reduce the sentence on the ground of the appellant’s age, noting that such a factor could not outweigh the victim’s age and the ordeal she faced, and observing that the Court cannot “turn a Nelson’s eye” in offences of this nature. The bench also directed the appellant to surrender to serve the sentence.

The Appellant, a 75-year-old neighbour of the minor victim, challenged the judgment dated 15 February 2018 passed by the Children’s Court for the State of Goa at Panaji, whereby he was convicted under Sections 341, 354, 375(b) and 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 2(y)(i) and (ii) punishable under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act, 2003. The prosecution case arose from a complaint lodged by the victim’s mother on 15 May 2012 after the child disclosed that the Appellant had forcibly taken her into his bathroom, undressed her, inserted his finger into her private part, and kissed her.

Also Read: High Courts Cannot Nullify Ongoing Arbitral Proceedings While Substituting Arbitrator: Supreme Court

The prosecution examined ten witnesses, including the victim, her mother, her friend, the friend’s mother, doctors who examined the victim and the Appellant, the Investigating Officer, and the Magistrate who recorded the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The defence contended false implication, delay in lodging the FIR, lack of medical corroboration, non-examination of material witnesses, and sought benefit of doubt, including on account of advanced age. The State argued that the victim’s testimony was credible and sufficient to sustain conviction.

The Court observed that the victim’s testimony was clear and consistent. It recorded, “PW1 has narrated the incident in apposite manner without leaving any scope to doubt her testimony.” It further noted, “Even if these omissions are considered, it does not in any manner effect the deposition about actual happening of the incident, which PW1 has narrated.” The Court stated, “The evidence of PW1 does not seem to be tutored by anyone to falsely implicate the Appellant.”

On medical evidence, the Court recorded, “The absence of injury on the private part is also not of much significant, in the facts of the present case.” It noted that the doctor had deposed that genital injuries could heal within 7 to 10 days. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court observed, “The conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it inspires confidence.” It further quoted, “Corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix is not a requirement of law.”

Addressing delay, the Court recorded, "Needless to mention that as far as delay in lodging the FIR is concerned, the delay in a case of sexual assault, cannot be equated with the case involving other offences. There are several factors which weigh in the mind of the prosecutrix and her family members before coming to the police station to lodge a complaint.”

Referring to Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing 2001, the Court observed that where “already overwhelming evidence is available… non-examination of such other witnesses may not be material.”

Regarding the defence of false implication, the Court recorded, “There is no explanation given as to why the Appellant has been falsely implicated.” It further stated, “The Appellant, other than offering a bald denial, has not lead any evidence whatsoever so as to rebut the testimony of the victim.”

On sentence, the Court observed, "This Court does not find the age of the Appellant, who is 83 years, a mitigating circumstance to reduce the sentence in such offences, as the Court also cannot turn a Nelson's eye to the age of the victim and the ordeal the victim has undergone."

Also Read: Solitary Incident Of Assaulting Child Not “Child Abuse” Under Goa Children’s Act: Bombay High Court Allows Appeal, Acquits Two Women

The Court directed, “The Appeal stands dismissed and the conviction of the Appellant is upheld. The Appellant shall forthwith surrender to serve his sentence. Bail bond stands cancelled. The request for stay is, therefore, rejected. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Ms. Annelise Fernandes, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Pravin Faldessai, Additional Public Prosecutor

Case Title: Martin Soares v. State
Neutral Citation: 2026: BHC-GOA:16
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2018
Bench: Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat