Home / Feb 14- Feb 20, 2026 / LAW / YET ANOTHER RAPE ACQUITTAL Is the prosecution to blame?By Dr Olav Albuquerque
YET ANOTHER RAPE ACQUITTAL Is the prosecution to blame?By Dr Olav Albuquerque
No Comments on YET ANOTHER RAPE ACQUITTAL Is the prosecution to blame?By Dr Olav Albuquerque

YET ANOTHER RAPE ACQUITTAL Is the prosecution to blame?By Dr Olav Albuquerque

Feb 14- Feb 20, 2026, LAW February 13, 2026 , by


THE sessions court, presided over by special judge Irshad Agha, acquitted Santa Cruz MLA Atanasio “Babush” Monserrate, of the charge of raping a minor — because the Prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the girl was under 18 years of age. Moreover, the victim declared in open court that she had fabricated the charge of rape.
 Given these facts, there was no option for the Special Judge, Irshad Agca, but to acquit the accused. Judge Agca is the seniormost among the sessions court judges, an excellent, soft-spoken and respected judge, who ought to be elevated to the High Court of Bombay at Goa going by his track record.
However, the fact that the Prosecution failed to prove that the girl was a minor, proves beyond a reasonable doubt the fact that the police and the Public Prosecutor who handled the case are both incompetent. It is not that difficult to get a birth certificate. In fact, the fact that neither the police nor the Public Prosecutor who appeared in the case made an attempt to procure her birth certificate, proves their incompetence.
The first thing that a police officer does when a cognizable crime is committed, is to verify the facts and if he and his superiors are satisfied that a rape has indeed been committed, the MLA has to be named in the FIR and subsequently in the charge-sheet.
The minor must undergo a medical examination, and the accused must also be medically examined. The DNA has to be obtained and matched with the DNA sample obtained from the minor girl after a swab test. If there is a match, the fact of rape is proved. In the case of minors, the question of consent is irrelevant. In this case, the victim made contradictory statements under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code and in her statement recorded before the same judge in court. She also declared during cross- examination she had fabricated the entire case, destroying the very foundation of her case.
The Public Prosecutor has to study the file, advise the complainant, and oversee the case from start to finish. This quite often is not done and after acquittal, the Prosecutor takes the defence that the Prosecution (which comprises the Police and the Public Prosecutor) is not supposed to have a thirst for conviction but merely present the facts before the sessions court and leave it to the court to decide.
This took place in a separate and unconnected criminal case when an accused was acquitted of the charge of fabricating a false sale deed, which stated that the 95-year-old vendor was the only daughter of her parents, when in fact she had five sisters, two of whom were living at that time. The Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) did not know the basic facts of the case and in court issued summonses to the accomplices of the accused, destroying the very foundation of the case.
The Director of Prosecutions refused to submit the case for revision and was compelled to do so, when the home department directed her to file a revision in the sessions court, which was heard side-by-side with the revision filed by the complainant. Both the revision petitions were dismissed by the sessions judge who said in her judgment, that both accomplices had been cross-examined when the advocate for the accused clearly waived his right to cross-examine a second accomplice, who had drafted the bogus sale deed.
This Director of Prosecutions mechanically promoted the allegedly delinquent APP to a Public Prosecutor where he is now appearing in the same case which has gone for an appeal. He knows the merits and drawbacks of the case and appears against the complainant simply because the director of prosecution has refused to file an appeal in the case, overruling her own APP, who took over from the allegedly delinquent APP who was his senior.
This director of prosecutions is undoubtedly an expert in criminal jurisprudence, but uses her knowledge of criminal procedure to shield her delinquent APPs whom she mechanically promotes as public prosecutors without any application of mind. Two complaints have been lodged against her.
THIS acquittal comes in the wake of many other acquittals such as the Scarlett Keeling rape case, the acquittal of the “Tehelka” editor, Tarun Tejpal in the lift rape case, where the then IO, Sunita Sawant, was promoted to the post of superintendent.
Be that as it may, it appears this acquittal which comes in the wake of a long series of acquittals stretching back to before this director of prosecutions took charge of her office, will also be just one in a series of blunders and bungles within her office, which will be forgotten by Goans.
The chief minister, Dr PRamod Sawant, heads the home department which is looked after by the chief secretary who reports directly to him. Unless something drastic is done to revamp the Directorate of Prosecutions, so that delinquent APPs are made to forfeit their promotions to the post of public prosecutor, this lethargic state of affairs will continue.
Will the advocate general of Goa please take note of this article? He is the senior most advocate in the state of Goa and the director of prosecutions is subordinate to the advocate general and also the chief secretary and the chief minister.

No related posts.

Search

Back to Top