Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT. J.
Ms Anita Naik, D/o Yashwant Naik – Appellant
Versus
State Through P.P. – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 49 OF 2016
Decided On : 03-02-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prosecution case: minor assaulted with iron rod. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. trial conviction challenged in appeal. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. arguments on evidence re-appreciation and discrepancies. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. witnesses corroborate victim's assault by appellants. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. injured witness testimony highly reliable. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 6. minor discrepancies and relative evidence credible. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 7. section 324 ipc offence proved. (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 8. section 504 ipc not established. (Para 37 , 38) |
| 9. isolated incident not child abuse. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 10. probation benefit for section 324 conviction. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50) |
JUDGMENT :
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT. J.
1. The present appeal has been filed against the impugned Judgement and Order dated 30.06.2016 passed by the Children's Court for the State of Goa, at Panaji in Special Case No. 55/2011, by which both the Appellants are convicted for the offence punishable under Section 504 and 324 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act 2003 and have been sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 500/- each for the offence punishable under r/w of along with simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 324 r/w of as well as to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each for the offence punishable under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act.
2. The case of the prosecution which has surfaced through its witnesses would reveal that on 04.06.2011 when the minor victim was washing his face near the tap of his residence, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 abused him with filthy words and thereafter Accused No. 2 caught hold of him while Accused No. 1 assaulted him with an iron rod on his head leading to bleeding injuries on the minor victim’s head. It is the case of the prosecution that the neighbour, Rupali Naik, informed the same to the mother of the victim upon which, the mother rushed to the spot and found the victim awaiting an ambulance with his bleeding head injury. As per the prosecution, the victim was then taken to Goa Medical College, Bambolim where he received treatment for his injury and further, he narrated the said incident to his mother who then lodged a complaint at Ponda Police Station against the two Accused persons. Consequently, F.I.R. No. 123/2011 was registered on 04.06.2011 against Accused Nos. 1 and 2 who were subsequently arrested on the same day and thereafter were released on bail on 05.06.2011.
3. Upon culmination of the investigation, chargesheet came to be filed on 13.12.2011 which arraigned the present Appellants as Accused Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. The Children's Court at Panaji framed the charge against Accused Nos. 1 and 2 for the offence punishable under Section 504 and 324 r/w Section 34 of IPC and Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act in Special Case No. 55/2011, to which the Appellants/Accused persons pleaded not guilty and claimed for trial.
4. To bring home the guilt of the Accused/Appellants, the prosecution has examined 8 witnesses as follows:-
| PW1 | Complainant the mother of the victim. |
| PW2 | Younger sister of the victim. |
| PW3 Dr. Jaya Karmali | Examined the victim. |
| PW4 | Victim. |
| PW5 Rupali Naik | Neighbour who informed PW1 of the incident. |
| PW6 | Eye witness and younger brother of the victim. |
| PW7 Manoj Naik. | Staff of GMC |
| PW8 Deepak Pednekar | Investigating Officer. |
The Appellants examined DW1: Vera M. De P Gonsalves, as the defence witness.
5. Thereafter, the statements of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. The Accused persons denied all the allegations levelled against them. It is their defence that they are falsely implicated in the present case due to property dispute and a false chargesheet has been filed against them.
6. The Learned Children’s Court, after considering the evidence on record, wa
Isolated physical assault on minor causing simple hurt qualifies under IPC 324 r/w 34 but not child abuse or IPC 504; conviction upheld for former, set aside for others; probation consideration manda....
The primary legal point established is that the quality of evidence, especially from injured witnesses, is paramount in criminal trials, affirming that such testimony holds significant weight over me....
The court established that actions taken in good faith to correct a child's misbehavior, without intent to harm, do not constitute child abuse under the Goa Children's Act or assault under the IPC.
The conviction of the appellant for sexual offences under IPC and the Goa Children's Act was upheld based on consistent testimony of the victim, emphasizing the necessity of protecting child victims ....
The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
The prosecution must substantiate allegations of caste-based abuse with credible evidence, and delays in complaint filing can undermine the case's integrity.
The court established that credible witness testimony is essential in sexual assault cases, particularly involving minors, and modified the sentence based on the nature of the crime and the age of th....
The court upheld the conviction under Section 324 IPC based on consistent eyewitness accounts, while acquitting one appellant due to evidence of his absence during the incident.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
