The Goa Bench of the Bombay High Court on January 8, 2026, refused to interfere with the conviction of a 75-year-old man found guilty of sexually assaulting a minor girl. After hearing detailed arguments from both sides, the court said the victim’s testimony was clear, natural, and strong enough to sustain the conviction without any doubt.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to May 2012, when the mother of the minor girl approached the police after learning about the incident through family friends. According to the prosecution, the child was assaulted inside the accused’s house. The girl later shared what happened with a friend and then with trusted adults, leading to the filing of a complaint with the help of Childline.
Read also:- Humiliation Is Not Justice: Allahabad High Court Strikes Down Placard Punishment for Student
In 2018, the Children’s Court at Panaji convicted the accused under multiple provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Goa Children’s Act. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of ten years for aggravated sexual assault, along with smaller sentences for wrongful restraint and outraging modesty.
Challenging this verdict, the accused filed a criminal appeal before the High Court.
Arguments Before the Court
Counsel for the appellant argued that the case suffered from serious flaws. The defence pointed to delays in filing the complaint, alleged inconsistencies in witness statements, and the absence of injuries in the medical examination. It was also argued that a key witness - the accused’s daughter, who was allegedly present in the house - was not examined, and that this failure weakened the prosecution case.
The State, however, strongly opposed the appeal. The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the child’s statement was consistent from the beginning and inspired confidence. He stressed that in cases involving minors, medical evidence is not always decisive and that the law permits conviction on the sole testimony of the victim if it is trustworthy.
Court’s Observations
After closely examining the evidence, Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat found no reason to doubt the victim’s version. The court noted that the child narrated the incident in a natural manner and stood firm during cross-examination.
“The testimony of the victim does not appear to be tutored or exaggerated,” the bench observed, adding that minor omissions or variations were expected given the age of the child and the passage of time.
On the medical evidence, the court said the absence of injuries could not negate the offence. Referring to settled Supreme Court law, the judge noted that injuries can heal quickly and that lack of physical marks does not mean the assault did not occur.
The High Court also rejected the argument based on the appellant’s advanced age. “The age of the accused cannot overshadow the gravity of the offence or the trauma suffered by the minor victim,” the court remarked.
Decision
Dismissing the appeal, the High Court upheld the 2018 conviction and the sentences imposed by the Children’s Court. The court held that all ingredients of the offences were proved beyond reasonable doubt and that no interference was warranted.
With this, the criminal appeal was rejected, and the conviction and punishment of the accused stand confirmed.
Case Title: Martin Soares vs State
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2018
Decision Date: 8 January 2026
