Dismissed¶30

The State of Goa (Women Police Station) v. Ashley Gomes

Bombay HC15 Jul 2025CRIR/17/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Goa Children's Act 2003 S.8(1) S.8(2) S.2(m)(i); Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 S.74 S.75; S.161 CrPC; S.164 CrPC; discharge of accused; quashing discharge order; framing of charge prima facie; child abuse video; Children's Court Goa Special Case No. 32/2019; criminal revision dismissed; State of Goa (Women Police Station) v. Ashley Gomes; neutral citation 2025:BHC-GOA:1231; decided 15-07-2025; Coram Valmiki Menezes J.; respondent argued in person.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the Petitioner; the Revision Application is rejected with no costs, leaving the impugned discharge order intact; Criminal Misc. Application No. 86 of 2022 also stands disposed of. ¶30

The State of Goa (Women Police Station) Vs Ashley Gomes — Bombay HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the Petitioner; the Revision Application is rejected with no costs, leaving the impugned discharge order intact; Criminal Misc. Application No. 86 of 2022 also stands disposed of.

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the Trial Court applied wrong principles of law whilst discharging the accused, such that the impugned order ought to be quashed and set aside and the case sent to trial (as contended by the prosecution). +1 more

¶17

Court's answer

The view taken by the Trial Court is based on the evidence/material before it and has been correctly appreciated in relation to the specific definitions of child abuse and other provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act; no case is made out for interference with the impugned discharge order.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Even if the video originated from the accused, it does not disclose, prima facie, the commission of an offence under the aforesaid provisions (S.8(1), 8(2) r/w S.2(m)(i) Goa Children's Act, 2003 and S.74/75 JJ Act, 2015); the clip shows students of the entire class along with the victim being interviewed by the accused, with no child abuse or cruelty.

¶23

Key takeaways

None of the descriptions of 'Child Abuse' under S.8(2) of the Act (psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and emotional maltreatment) would fit the scenes shown in the video.ratio¶23
The origin of the video attached by the IO was not the accused — it was received by CW-6 from CW-7 — and prima facie there is no material suggesting any of the offences referred to in the chargesheet have been made out to take the case to trial.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

State of Goa (Women Police Station) v. Ashley Gomes, High Court of Bombay at Goa, Criminal Revision Application No. 17 of 2025 (Valmiki Menezes, J.) [2025:BHC-GOA:1231], decided 15th July, 2025 — Revision (delay condoned via Crl.M.A. No. 86 of 2022) challenging the Children's Court's order dated 10.02.2022 discharging the sole accused in Special Case No. 32/2019 of offences punishable under S.8(1), 8(2) r/w S.2(m)(i) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003 and S.74 and 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Allegation: circulation of a video, allegedly filmed by the accused, portraying a child as mentally retarded to ridicule and humiliate him. Held: the video shows the entire class including the victim being interviewed by the accused and depicts no child abuse or cruelty; none of the S.8(2) categories of 'Child Abuse' (psychological/physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse, emotional maltreatment) fits the scenes; CW-6 received the video from CW-7, not from the accused; the Trial Court's findings in paras 8–9 of its order (considering the victim's S.161 and S.164 CrPC statements) were a correct appreciation of the material. Revision Application rejected, no costs; Crl.M.A. disposed of.

¶1

2025:BHC-GOA:1231

¶2

CRIR -17-2025.docx

¶3

Meena

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.17 OF 2025

¶5

WITH CRIMINAL MISC. APPLICATION NO. 86 OF 2022 IN CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.17 OF 2025

¶6

THE STATE OF GOA (WOMEN POLICE ... Petitioner. STATION)

¶7

Versus ASHLEY GOMES ... Respondent

¶8

Mr. Pravin Faldessai, Additional Public Prosecutor for the Applicant.

¶9

Mr. Ashley Gomes, Respondent in person.

¶10

CORAM: VALMIKI MENEZES, J. DATED: 15^th July, 2025

¶11

P.C.:

¶12

1. Registry to waive oice objections and register the matter.

¶13

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

¶14

Page 1 of 4 15^th July, 2025

¶15

CRIR -17-2025.docx

¶16

and Section 74 and 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.

¶17

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.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.

¶20

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

¶21

Page 2 of 4 15^th July, 2025

¶22

CRIR -17-2025.docx

¶23

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.

¶24

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.

¶25

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

¶26

Page 3 of 4

¶27

15^th July, 2025

¶28

CRIR -17-2025.docx

¶29

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.

¶30

8. The Revision Application is therefore rejected. No Costs.

¶31

9. Criminal Misc. Application also stands disposed of.

¶32

VALMIKI MENEZES, J.

¶33

Page 4 of 4 15^th July, 2025

¶34

Signed by: MEENA VISHAL BHOIR Designation: Private Secretary Date: 18/07/2025 11:13:45

The State of Goa (Women Police Station) v. Ashley Gomes

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The State of Goa (Women Police Station) v. Ashley Gomes

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijay Kumar Sonkar Vs State, Thr. Police Inspector / Officer in Charge

Vinayak Digambar Voloikar Vs Vpk Urban Co-Op Credit Society Ltd.

Santosh Kumar Kar, Presently Lodged in Judicial Custody, Colvale, Goa. Vs State of Goa, Thr. Public Prosecutor and Anr.

Vishwas Suresh Mardolkar vs State of Goa Thr. the Public Prosecutor and Anr.

Mahadhan Real Estates Pvt. Ltd., vs Special Lanc Acquisition Officer, Goa State Infrastructure Dev. Corp. Ltd.

The State of Goa (Women Police Station) Vs Ashley Gomes