The burden of proof on the prosecution, the credibility of the minor victim's testimony, and the definitions of sexual offences and child abuse under the relevant acts were central to the judgment.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. V. Amonkar, learned counsel for the Appellant under Legal Aid Scheme and Mr. Nagvenkar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 31st August, 2017, in Special Case No.108/2015 made by the Children's Court for the State of Goa at Panaji, convicting and sentencing the Appellant (Accused) for offence under Section 375(a), punishable under Section 376(2) (f), (i) and (n) of IPC, under Section 2(y)(i) and (iii), punishable under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003, under Section 3(a), punishable under Section 4, under Section 5(m) and (n), punishable under Section 6 and under Section 11(iii), punishable under Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a term of 10 years for offences under the Goa Children's Act, 2003 and three years for offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

3. The case of the prosecution is that for the period between November, 2009 and November, 2014, the accused committed rape/grave sexual assault/penetrative sexual assault/incest/aggravated penetrative sexual assault on his minor step daughter, aged 9 to 14 years by having forcible sexual intercourse/oral sex with her and also showed pornographic video on his mobile phone with sexual intention and required her to perform similar acts.

4. The prosecution had also alleged that the wife of the accused and the biological mother of the victim was aware of such acts but failed to report the same to the Special Juvenile or local police and further the wife also sold her two minor children born out of relationship with the accused to some unknown person and also employed the minor victim girl in the house of one Mr. Lobo. Accordingly, the wife of the accused was also charged for committing offence under the Goa Children's Act, 2003 and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

5. By the impugned judgment and order however, the wife of the accused was acquitted of the offence under Section 8(16) punishable under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003 and Section 19(1), punishable under Section 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. However, the wife of the accused was convicted for offence under Section 2(m)(i) punishable under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003.

6. Mr. Amonkar, learned counsel for the Accused informed the Court that the wife of the accused has already suffered imprisonment awarded to her and she has not appealed her conviction for the offence under Section 2(m)(i) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003. Therefore, in the present appeal only the conviction of the Appellant i.e. the Accused No.1 is under challenge.

7. Mr. Amonkar, at the outset submits that the entire charge levelled against the accused is inherently improbable. He submits that it is inconceivable that the minor girl if indeed sexually assaulted in this manner, did not report this fact to her biological mother. He submits that this points out to the falsity of the prosecution case or at least renders the testimony of the victim girl (PW2) unreliable.

8. Mr. Amonkar submits that the scene of offence panchanama will indicate that the incident as alleged to have taken place in a very small room having dimension of 2 X 2 in a crowded slum area. He submits that it is the prosecution version that some of the instances of sexual assault have taken place when the wife of the accused and the biological mother of the victim was present in the room. He submits that all this is inherently improbable and therefore, cast a serious doubt upon the prosecution version.

9. Mr. Amonkar submits that the medical evidence in this case hardly supports any case of penetrative sexual assault. In the absence of any corroborative medical evidence, the accused ought not to have been convicted in this matter.

10. Mr. Amonkar submits that Lobo's with wh