A sessions court in Goa has acquitted Revenue Minister Atanasio Monserrate, concluding that the prosecution could not establish the foundational facts required to sustain charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and the Indian Penal Code.
The case, titled State of Goa v. Atanasio Teoflio Martins Monserrate & Anr., also involved co-accused Rosaria Ferros. Delivering the verdict, Sessions Judge Irshad Agha of the Tiswadi–Merces court held that the evidence on record did not prove rape, wrongful confinement, criminal intimidation, or offences under the Information Technology Act.
Presumption Cannot Replace Proof
The court underscored a crucial principle: even in cases under the POCSO Act—where Section 29 allows a presumption of guilt—the State must first lay down a solid factual foundation. That foundation, the judge found, was missing.
Although the statute tilts in favour of the prosecution once basic ingredients are established, the court said those threshold facts were “absolutely missing” in this case. Without them, the presumption could not be invoked.
Allegations and Evidence
The prosecution alleged that in 2016, Monserrate, aided by Ferros, induced a minor girl to send semi-nude photographs, confined her at a farmhouse in Taleigao, and had sexual intercourse with her.
But the court found that none of these claims were convincingly proved. There was no reliable evidence demonstrating sexual intercourse without consent. Allegations of confinement and intimidation also fell apart under scrutiny. The supposed transmission of explicit images remained unsubstantiated.
Age at the Centre of the Case
The most critical gap lay in establishing the girl’s age.
While the prosecution described her as 14 at the time of the alleged incident, a medical board—comprising a forensic expert and a dental specialist—estimated her radiological and dental age to be between 17 and 18 years, with a possible margin of error of two years either way.
No birth certificate or dependable school record was produced to conclusively fix her age below 16. The court observed that even accounting for the margin of error, the benefit would go to the accused.
In effect, the prosecution failed to prove that the girl was a minor within the statutory threshold that would automatically trigger the POCSO presumption.
Testimony Under Strain
The court also examined inconsistencies in the complainant’s statements recorded at various stages—before the police, before a Magistrate under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and during counselling sessions.
During cross-examination, she acknowledged that her earlier complaints were a “figment of imagination” and admitted that nothing untoward had occurred at the farmhouse. These retractions, the court noted, significantly weakened the prosecution’s narrative.
Charges Set Aside
Both accused were acquitted of offences under Sections 376 (rape), 342 (wrongful confinement), and 506 (criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 of the IPC, Section 4 of the POCSO Act, and Section 67B of the Information Technology Act.
With the ruling, the court closed a case that turned not on presumption, but on proof—finding that the prosecution had not crossed the evidentiary threshold required to sustain the serious charges levelled against the accused.
