ALANKAR PADAJI MHATRE AND ORS v. SHRI. NAMDEO NARAYAN NAIK AND ORS
Upholding Conviction in Sexual Assault Case: Credibility of Victim's Testimony and Relevance of Medical Evidence under IPC and Goa Children's Act.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-GOA:16
Decision Date: 08-01-2026
List of Laws
Indian Penal Code, 1860; Goa Children's Act, 2003; Criminal Procedure Code; Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012; Indian Evidence Act, 1872
- Facts: The appellant, Martin Soares, was convicted by the Children's Court for offences under Sections 341, 354, 375(b), and 376(2)(i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), read with Section 2(y)(i) and (ii) and punishable under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003, based on the testimony of the victim (PW1). The victim alleged that Soares forcibly took her into his house, undressed her, touched her inappropriately, and kissed her. The appellant denied the allegations, claiming false implication.
- Procedural Posture: The appellant appealed the judgment and order of the Children's Court to the High Court of Bombay at Goa, challenging the conviction and sentence. The State contested the appeal.
- Issue: Did the Children's Court err in convicting the appellant based on the evidence presented, considering the alleged discrepancies and omissions in the victim's testimony and the absence of corroborating medical evidence?
- Holding: No, the High Court upheld the conviction, finding no reason to interfere with the trial court's judgment. The appeal was dismissed.
- Reasoning: The High Court analyzed the evidence of key witnesses, particularly the victim (PW1), her mother (PW2), and friends (PW3 and PW4). The court found PW1's testimony to be clear, consistent, and natural, inspiring confidence. The court addressed the appellant's arguments regarding discrepancies and omissions in the victim's statements, stating that minor contradictions do not materially affect the prosecution's case. The court also addressed the lack of medical evidence, citing Supreme Court precedents that state that the testimony of the prosecutrix can be sufficient for conviction in sexual offence cases, even in the absence of corroborating medical evidence, if the testimony is credible. The court also noted that the appellant did not rebut the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act. The court concluded that the trial court had rightly convicted the appellant based on cogent evidence and that the impugned judgment did not suffer from any illegality.
🔒 For Members Only