CRIR -17-2025.docx Meena IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.17 OF 2025 WITH CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 86 OF 2022 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.17 OF 2025 THE STATE OF GOA (WOMEN POLICE STATION) ... Petitioner. Versus ASHLEY GOMES ... Respondent Mr. Pravin Faldessai, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Applicant. Mr. Ashley Gomes, Respondent in person. CORAM: VALMIKI MENEZES, J. DATED: 15th July, 2025 P.C.: 1. Registry to waive oice objections and register the matter. 2. For reasons mentioned in CrMA No. 86 of 2022, delay in iling the Revision Application is condoned. The order impugned in this Criminal Revision is dated 10.02.2022, discharging the Respondent, who was the sole accused in Special Case No. 32/2019 before the Childrens Court, of ofences punishable under Section 8(1), 8(2) read with Section 2(m) (i) of the Goa Children’s Act, 2003 15th July, 2025 2025:BHC-GOA:1231 CRIR -17-2025.docx and Section 74 and 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. 3. The main contention raised by the Petitioner was that from the statement of the witnesses and the video clip attached, the ofences under the aforementioned provisions, prima facie, would show enough material to frame a charge. The prosecution contends that the Trial Court has applied the wrong principles of law whilst discharging the accused, hence the Order ought to be quashed and set aside and the case be tried. The Respondent appeared in person and though he was requested to engage Counsel, he argued his case without legal assistance, and contended that from the material iled along with the Chargesheet there was no ofence, prima facie, made out to frame charge. 4. I have considered the records of the case and the impugned order passed by the Children’s Court. The main allegation in the case is that a video was circulated, allegedly ilmed by the accused, of a child/victim, portraying that child as a mentally retarded person, with a view to ridicule and humiliate the victim, causing him physical and mental abuse. 5. During the course of the investigation, it is revealed from the record that prosecution witness CW-6/Shanti has stated that she received the video, but not from the accused, and the same was 15th July, 2025 CRIR -17-2025.docx received from CW-7/Bharat. Perusal of the video clip does not suggest any child abuse or cruelty but shows students of the entire class along with the victim, interviewed by the accused. Even if the video originated form the accused, the same does not disclose, prima facie, the commission of an ofence under the aforesaid provisions. ‘Child Abuse’ as deined under Section 8(2) of the Act includes psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and emotional maltreatment. None of these descriptions would it the scenes, shown in the video. 6. The Trial Court has considered the video and has recorded a speciic inding on this aspect in para 8 and 9 of its Order, concluding that the video does not show any abuse. It also considers the Statement of the Child Victim under Section 161 CrPC before a NGO and the child’s Statement under Section 164 CrPC and has rightly concluded that the incident disclosed by the child victim is not seen in the video clip. The Court also examined the Statements of the other Child Witnesses, one of which suggest any abuse. 7. The Trial Court has also considered the Statements of CW-6 and CW-7 and has rightly concluded that the origin of the video attached by the IO was not from the Accussed but was received by CW-6 from CW-7. Prima facie therefore, there is no material which suggests any of the ofences referred to in the Chargesheet have been made out , to take the case to trial. The view taken by the Trial Court is based on the evidence/material before it and has been 15th July, 2025 CRIR -17-2025.docx correctly appreciated in relation to the speciic deinitions of child abuse and other provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act. There is therefore, no case made out for interference with the impugned order. 8. The Revision Application is therefore rejected. No Costs. 9. Criminal Misc. Application also stands disposed of. VALMIKI MENEZES, J. 15th July, 2025 Signed by: MEENA VISHAL BHOIR Designation: Private Secretary Date: 18/07/2025 11:13:45