Dismissed¶30

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

Bombay HC15 Jul 2025CRMA/86/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay High Court at Goa; criminal revision against Childrens Court discharge order dated 10.02.2022 in Special Case No. 32/2019; Goa Children's Act 2003 Sections 8(1), 8(2), 2(m)(i); Juvenile Justice Act 2015 Sections 74, 75; alleged child-abuse video ridiculing victim; prima facie material to frame charge; statements of child victim under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC; video origin CW-6/Shanti via CW-7/Bharat not accused; delay condoned CrMA 86/2022; revision rejected 15.07.2025; Valmiki Menezes, J.; respondent argued in person; State of Goa Women Police Station petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Delay in filing the Revision Application is condoned for the reasons mentioned in CrMA No. 86 of 2022. ¶13

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether there is any case for interference with the Childrens Court's order dated 10.02.2022 discharging the Respondent, i.e., whether on the witness statements and the video clip the offences under Sections 8(1)/8(2) read with Section 2(m)(i) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003 and Sections 74/75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 were prima facie made out so as to require the case to proceed to trial.

¶17

Court's answer

Perusal of the video clip discloses no child abuse or cruelty; it shows students of the entire class along with the victim interviewed by the accused. Even if the video originated from the accused, it does not disclose, prima facie, commission of an offence under the aforesaid provisions; none of the descriptions of 'Child Abuse' under Section 8(2) (psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse, emotional maltreatment) fit the scenes shown in the video.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

Delay in filing the Revision Application is condoned for the reasons mentioned in CrMA No. 86 of 2022.

¶13

Key takeaways

The Trial Court's specific findings (paras 8 and 9 of its order) that the video does not show any abuse were correct; considering the Child Victim's statement under Section 161 CrPC before an NGO and her statement under Section 164 CrPC, it rightly concluded that the incident disclosed by the child victim is not seen in the video clip.ratio¶24
On the statements of CW-6/Shanti (who received the video but not from the accused) and CW-7/Bharat, the Trial Court rightly concluded that the video attached by the IO did not originate from the Accused but was received by CW-6 from CW-7.ratio¶25
Prima facie, there is no material suggesting any of the offences referred to in the Chargesheet is made out to take the case to trial; the view taken by the Trial Court rests on the evidence/material before it and was correctly appreciated against the specific definitions of child abuse and other provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act; consequently, no case is made out for interference with the impugned order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Bombay at Goa (Valmiki Menezes, J.), Criminal Revision Application No. 17 of 2025, decided 15 July 2025: The State of Goa (Women Police Station) sought quashing of the Childrens Court's order dated 10.02.2022 discharging Ashley Gomes, sole accused in Special Case No. 32/2019, of offences punishable under Sections 8(1) and 8(2) read with Section 2(m)(i) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003 and Sections 74 and 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, alleging a circulated video portrayed a child/victim as mentally retarded to ridicule and humiliate him. After condoning the filing delay (CrMA No. 86 of 2022) and directing registration, the Court held: the video merely showed the entire class, with the victim, interviewed by the accused; even if filmed by him, it disclosed no offence, as none of the Section 8(2) categories of 'child abuse' (psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse, emotional maltreatment) fitted its scenes; CW-6/Shanti received the video from CW-7/Bharat and not from the accused; the child victim's statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC disclosed an incident not seen in the clip. With no prima facie material to frame charge, the Trial Court's view required no interference. Revision rejected, no costs; Criminal Misc. Application No. 86 of 2022 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?

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.

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

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.