Cannot Turn A Nelson’s Eye To Victim’s Age And Ordeal: Bombay High Court Upholds Sentence Of 83-Year-Old In POCSO Case
Court rejects age-based leniency, affirms conviction for aggravated sexual assault on minor under IPC and Goa Children’s Act, Says accused except offering a bald denial, did not led any evidence to rebut the testimony of the victim
The Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) has upheld the conviction and sentence of an 83-year-old man for sexually assaulting a minor, while refusing to show leniency on the ground of advanced age. The Court held that the age of the victim and the trauma endured by her could not be lost sight of. The Bench noted that, apart from a bald denial, the accused led no evidence whatsoever to rebut the victim’s testimony by virtue of Section 29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act).
Affirming that old age cannot dilute the gravity of offences against children, the bench upheld the accused guilty of offences punishable under Sections 341, 354 and 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 8(2) of the Goa Children’s Act, 2003, which deals with aggravated sexual assault on minors.
Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat thus 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 also turn a Nelson’s eye to the age of the victim and the ordeal the victim has undergone”.
“…this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court has rightly convicted the Appellant of the offences for which he was charged for as the same is duly proved beyond reasonable doubt by cogent evidence. The trial court has evaluated and appreciated the entire evidence in an absolute apropos manner and arrived at the only possible conclusion i.e. the guilt of the accused. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or irregularity whatsoever warranting interference by this Court”, the bench further observed.
Advocate Annelise Fernandes appeared for the petitioner and Pravin Faldessai, Additional Public Prosecutor appeared for the respondent.
For background, the matter arose after an incident in which the accused wrongfully restrained and sexually assaulted a minor girl, who was his neighbour’s daughter.
Pursuant to which, a complaint was lodged, following which an FIR was registered and the investigation was carried out. Now, based on the victim’s testimony and corroborating evidence, the Children’s Court for the State of Goa at Panaji, by a judgment dated 15-02-2018.
Through the impugned judgment, the Special Court sentenced the accused to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and imposed a fine of ₹2,00,000 for the offence of aggravated rape of a minor. In addition, he was sentenced to three years’ simple imprisonment with a fine of ₹5,000 for outraging the modesty of a woman under Section 354 IPC, and one month’s simple imprisonment with a fine of ₹500 for wrongful restraint under Section 341 IPC. All sentences were directed to run concurrently.
Challenging the conviction, the accused contended before the High Court that the sentence was harsh, particularly considering his advanced age.
The Court found no perversity in the findings of the trial court and held that the victim’s testimony was reliable and sufficient to sustain the conviction. It further observed that the legislative intent behind stringent punishment for sexual offences against minors would be defeated if courts were to dilute sentences on sympathetic considerations unrelated to the offence.
The bench accordingly noted, “…this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court has rightly convicted the Appellant of the offences for which he was charged for as the same is duly proved beyond reasonable doubt by cogent evidence. The trial court has evaluated and appreciated the entire evidence in an absolute apropos manner and arrived at the only possible conclusion i.e. the guilt of the accused. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or irregularity whatsoever warranting interference by this Court”.
“Another aspect which cannot be lost sight of is that the stand taken by the Appellant is that he has been falsely implicated however there is no explanation given as to why the Appellant has been falsely implicated. Even in cross examination nothing has been brought on record by the Appellant to substantiate its claim that he has been falsely implicated. The opportunity to explain his stand was available to him while recording statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. however, the same has not been availed of. No doubt the Appellant has a right to maintain silence even before the Court during the examination under 313 of Cr.P.C. however, the Court would be entitled to draw an inference including adverse inference as may be permissible”, the bench further noted.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence in entirety, reiterating that the protection of children and deterrence against sexual offences must remain paramount.
Cause Title: X v. Y [Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-GOA:16]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Annelise Fernandes, Advocate.
Respondent: Pravin Faldessai, Additional Public Prosecutor, Advocate.
Click here to read/download the Judgment