Goa Court Acquits Minister Atanasio Monserrate in 2016 Rape Case, Cites Prosecution's Failure to Prove Key Facts
A Sessions court in Goa has acquitted Revenue Minister Atanasio Monserrate and another accused, Rosaria alias Rosy Ferros, in a high-profile rape case dating back to 2016. The court's ruling emphasized that the prosecution "utterly failed" to establish crucial elements of the case, including the victim's age and the occurrence of sexual intercourse.
Court Highlights Critical Gaps in Prosecution's Case
In a detailed order, Sessions Judge Irshad Agha of North Goa, Merces, pointed out that certain essential facts were "absolutely missing" from the prosecution's evidence. The court acquitted both Monserrate and Ferros of charges under:
- Section 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)
- Section 342 (wrongful confinement)
- Section 506 (criminal intimidation) read with section 34 (common intention) of the IPC
- Provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act
- Offences under the Information and Technology Act
The case stemmed from allegations that in 2016, Ferros instigated the victim to send nude photographs to Monserrate. The complainant further claimed she was taken to Monserrate's farmhouse, where she was offered a soft drink and snacks, fell unconscious, and was sexually assaulted by him.
Inconsistent Testimonies and Lack of Medical Evidence
The court noted that the victim's statements were recorded multiple times by police, magistrates, and an NGO, leading to significant inconsistencies. "The victim girl admits that she has given inconsistent versions," the order stated. She reportedly changed her account, initially alleging sexual intercourse twice during the night but later retracting this claim.
Moreover, the victim admitted that complaints about her mother selling her to the accused were false. She stated she fabricated the story out of frustration and depression while being held at Apna Ghar, where she felt mentally tortured. The court also highlighted that medical evidence did not support the prosecution's case, further undermining the allegations.
Failure to Prove Victim's Age and Lack of Consent
A pivotal aspect of the ruling was the prosecution's inability to prove the victim was a "child" under the POCSO Act at the time of the alleged incident. The court emphasized that without credible evidence establishing her age below 18 years, the essential ingredients of the rape charge under Section 376 of the IPC could not be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
"The prosecution has failed to prove the age of the victim. In the absence of credible evidence... the essential ingredient of the offence under Section 376 of IPC are not proved beyond reasonable doubt," the court explained, granting the benefit of doubt to the accused.
Unclear Details and Contradictory Accounts
The court detailed further ambiguities in the case, including uncertainty about who first disclosed the facts, who took the victim to Monserrate's house, and the exact date of the incident. The victim provided conflicting accounts of being conscious versus unconscious, and the investigating officer consistently stated she was never unconscious during the alleged events.
These inconsistencies, combined with the lack of clarity on who offered the drink and snacks, led the court to conclude that the prosecution's case was effectively rebutted. The acquittal underscores the legal principle that guilt must be established with concrete evidence, and in this instance, the court found the proof insufficient to sustain the charges.
