Back
2017 Supreme(Bom) 2371
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT GOA
Prithviraj K. Chavan, J.
Maria Benedicta Mendonca, D/o Valerian Mendonca – Petitioner
Versus
State Old-Goa Police Station – Respondent
Criminal Revision Application No. 9 of 2016
Decided On : 10-07-2017
For the Petitioner:Shri. S.D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Marushka Furtado, Advocate
For the Respondent: Shri. S.R. Rivonkar, Public Prosecutor
For the Intervenor :Shri. Ryan Menezes with Ms. C. Rebeiro Advocates
At the stage of framing charges, evidence need only establish a prima facie case, and it is not necessary to go into the merits of the case.
Headnote:
Framing Charge - Child Labour - Indian Penal Code, Sections 323, 324, 504; Goa Children's Act, 2003, Sections 2(m)(i), 8(2), 8(4), 8(9); Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, Section 14
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a stenographer, was charge-sheeted for offenses under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the Goa Children's Act, as well as the Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act. The victim, a minor girl, was allegedly trafficked for domestic labor and subjected to physical and mental cruelty by the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was sufficient material to frame charges against the petitioner under the provisions of the Acts and the Indian Penal Code. It held that the victim's statement and the First Information Report were sufficient at the stage of framing charges, and that the petitioner had not obtained permission to keep the victim with her.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of framing charges against the petitioner, the sufficiency of evidence, and the interpretation of the relevant legal provisions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, it is not necessary to go into the merits of the case, and that evidence need only establish a prima facie case. It also highlighted the responsibility to obtain permission for keeping a child not related by blood, as well as the elements of the offenses under the Indian Penal Code.
Final Decision: The petition was partly allowed, and the Children's Court was directed to frame charges against the petitioner in accordance with the court's observations.
PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.
Legality, propriety and correctness of an impugned order of framing charge against the petitioner by the President, Children's Court for the State of Goa at Panaji, has been challenged invoking revisional jurisdiction of this Court.
2. The petitioner, who appears to be a Stenographer in the Court, has been charge-sheeted by the Old Goa Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 7, 8(2), 9 of the Goa Children's Act, 2003 (“Act” for short) and Section 14 of Child Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986.
3. The learned President, after having gone through the material on record, by the impugned order dated 5th August, 2015 directed to frame a charge against the petitioner under Sections 323, 324 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 2(m)(i) punishable under Section 8(2), punishable under Section 8(4) and punishable under Section 8(9) of the Act.
4. Heard Shri. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. It is argued by the learned Senior Counsel that the learned President has failed to appreciate that the birth of the victim has been duly registered and a birth certificate in that regard was produced which forms the part of the record showing the age of the victim girl 17 years and 04 months in the month of August 2011 when she was allegedly brought to the residence of the petitioner to work as a housemaid. The victim girl, however, falsely stated that her age as 14 years in her statement when, in fact, she was more than 18 years on 6th April, 2013. It is further submitted that there was no sufficient material on record even for prima facie contending that the ingredients of Sections 324 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code and also under the provisions of the Act are attracted. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the alleged weapons of offence includes broom and chappal which cannot be said to be weapons of offence used to inflict hurt as contemplated in Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also submitted that there is no material to substantiate whether the alleged ill-treatment was meted out to the victim before the age of 18 years or after attaining the said age.
5. Shri. Rivonkar, learned Public Prosecutor spoke in tune with the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner insofar as Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, however, he submits that there is material to frame charge against the petitioner under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
6. Shri. Ryan Menezes, learned counsel appearing for the victim/Intervenor took me through the record vis-a-vis the provisions of the Act and vehemently urged that by keeping the victim child in custody for two years without authorisation itself is a serious offence which attracts sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the said Act. The learned counsel also drew my attention to the panchanama which indicates that the Investigating Agency had also seized a stick which can be used to inflict harm as contemplated in Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.
7. I have meticulously gone through the record. At the outset, it appears that the victim girl was employed by the petitioner in her house since August 2011 who resides at old Goa. Un-disputedly, the victim girl is a native of the State of Orissa and was brought to the house of the petitioner by some unknown person. It is also not in dispute that the date of birth of the victim girl is 15th April, 1994 and, therefore, in the month of August 2011 when she was brought to the house of the petitioner, her age was 17 years and four months and, therefore, indeed she was a child, in view of Section 2(d) of the Act. That being so, it is needless to go into other material on record such as medical evidence to ascertain the correct age of the victim girl.
8. The report lodged with the police by one Larissa Pieardo, on behalf of a NGO by name Central Coordinator indicates that the said minor girl was
