IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
R.D. DHANUKA, PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, JJ.
Central Bureau of Investigation – Appellant
Versus
Samson D'Souza and Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 55 of 2017
Decided On : 17-07-2019
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 378(2) - Commit Rape - Child Abuse - Sexual Assault - Appeal against Acquittal - A British minor girl (victim) came to India as a Tourist along with her mother and 8 siblings - She was aged about 15 years and 8 months at the time of incident - She was residing in Silolim, Bardez Goa with her Indian boy friend her mother and other siblings left for Gokarna in Karnataka - On same day at about 8.30 p.m. victim went to Bean Me Up Restaurant, to a Spanish girl and a friend of victim - Ruby and victim spent evening together - They visited number of restaurants where both consumed alcoholic drinks - They returned to Bean Me Up Restaurant around - Victim left Restaurant by informing Ruby that she was returning to Siolim - Victim was thereafter seen in front of Luis Cafe, a shack - When she reached Luis Shack she was intoxicated and her gait was not steady - She was wearing red sleeveless vest and blue shorts. She requested those who were present at the shack that she did not have money to go to Siolim - It is case of prosecution that despite knowing fact that victim was in an intoxicated condition and was minor, respondent no. 1 offered her an alcoholic drink which she had consumed on the spot - Intention of respondent no. 1-Samson was to commit rape/child abuse/sexual assault upon the victim. It is alleged by the prosecution that both the respondents and one Murli Sagar were sniffing cocaine lines and were consuming alcoholic drinks - Intention of the respondent no. 1-Samson to administer intoxicating drug to the victim was to incapacitate her so that he could commit crime in which respondent no. 2 alias Shana aided and abetted commission of said crime – Held, Court considered the respective submissions at bar - It is pertinent to note that at the time of commission of offence respondent was in his thirties and was quite matured to understand the acts which he had committed with a preplanned motive by offering intoxicated substance to the victim as well as offering her beer - Mode and manner in which he thereafter took the victim to the beach and outraged her modesty also exhibits the lasciviousness on his part - Merely because he is the only earning member of the family with a minor daughter would not be a mitigating circumstance to show leniency in his favour - A Court, while imposing sentence, has a duty to respond to the collective cry of the society - Legislature, in its wisdom, has conferred discretion on the Court, but the duty of the Court, in such a situation, becomes more difficult and complex - It has to exercise the discretion on reasonable and rational parameters - It is duty of the court, not to exercise the discretion in such a manner, as a consequence of which, expectation inherent in patience, which is the “finest part of fortitude” is destroyed - A Judge should never feel, that the individuals who constitute the society as a whole, is imperceptible to the exercise of discretion - He should always bear in mind, that erroneous and fallacious exercise of discretion is perceived by a visible collective - Application disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved with and dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and order of acquittal dated 23.9.2016 passed by the President, Children’s Court, Panaji in Special Case No. 15/2008, the Central Bureau of Investigation (for short “CBI”) has preferred this appeal under Section 378(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short Cr.P.C.) amongst following facts and grounds.
2. Respondents/original accused nos. 1 and 2 have been acquitted by the learned Trial Court of the offences punishable under Sections 328, 354, 304(ii), 201, 109 of Indian Penal Code (for short “IPC”) read with Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act, 2003.
3. The prosecution case, as emerged from the record, is as follows:-
4. It is alleged by the prosecution that in pursuance of the same, respondent no. 1-Samson and respondent no. 2-Shana had spread cocaine lines on the plate kept uncovered on the table and made the victim sniff the cocaine lines. The victim thereafter had consumed beer. Respondent no. 1-Samson had carried two Ecstasy tablets from the bar counter of the shack and went to kitchen which he intended to give to the victim in order to commit rape/sexual assault/grave sexual assault upon the victim. PW-14 Murli Sagar, who was in the shack at the relevant time assured the victim to drop her at Curlies Restaurant, however, respondent no. 1-Samson, with the criminal intention of sexually abusing the victim, made PW-14 Murli Sagar to believe that he would drop her at Curlies Restaurant. He took disadvantage of an intoxicated condition of the victim due to the consumption of cocaine lines, Ecstasy tablets and drinks, outraged her modesty and committed grave sexual assault. After committing the offence, respondent no. 1-Samson hurriedly left his orange coloured chappals at the scene. He subsequently destroyed the said evidence.
5. According to the prosecution the respondent no. 1-Samson was seen committing crime at the wee hours on 18.2.2008 behind Luis shack and in front of the chapel situated near Luis Restaurant at Govekar Wada, Anjuna by PW-14 Murli
Abrar vs. State of U.P. (2011) 2 SCC 750
A. Shankar vs. State of Karnataka
Amit alias Ammu vs. State of Maharashtra
Birbal vs. State of M.P. (2000) 10 SCC 212
Babu S/o Raveendran vs. Babu S/o Bahuleyan and Another
Chandran alias Manichan alias Maniyan and Others vs. State of Kerala
Ghurey Lal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Hakeem Khan and Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Hanumant S/o Govind Nargundkar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
Jaharlal Das vs. State of Orissa
Jogendra Nahak and Others vs. State of Orissa and Others
Laxmipat Choraria and Others vs. State of Maharashtra
Mohd. Azad alias Samin vs. State of West Bengal
Munishamappa and Others vs. State of Karnataka
Mohibur Rahman vs. State of Assam
Narmada Bai vs. State of Gujarat
Pattu Rajan vs. State of Tamil Nadu
Prithipal Singh and Others vs. State of Punjab and Another
Rukia Begum and Others vs. State of Karnataka
Rajiv Singh vs. State of Bihar and Another
Raj Bala vs. State of Haryana and Others
Rishipal vs. State of Uttarakhand
State through Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Mahender Singh Dahiya
State of Goa vs. Sanjay Thakran and Another
Sandeep Kumar Bafna vs. State of Maharashtra
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra
Tahsildar Singh and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali alias Deepak and Others
Vipul Shital Prasad Agarwal vs. State of Gujarat and Another
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.