In a significant judgment that reinforces the priority of justice for victims over the age of the offender, the Bombay High Court (Goa Bench) has refused to reduce the 10-year prison sentence of an 83-year-old man convicted of sexually assaulting a minor girl.

Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat, while dismissing the appeal, remarked that the court cannot turn a "Nelson’s eye" (a blind eye) to the trauma and ordeal suffered by a child victim, regardless of how old the convict is today.

The case dates back to April 2012. The victim, who was only 9 years old at the time, had gone to the house of her neighbor, Martin Soares (then 75 years old), to play with his daughter. According to the prosecution, Soares took advantage of the situation, dragged the minor into a bathroom, and subjected her to sexual assault.

The trial court, after examining the evidence and the harrowing testimony of the child, found Soares guilty under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Goa Children’s Act, 2003. He was sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment.

The convict, now 83, approached the High Court challenging his conviction. His legal team raised several points to argue for his innocence or at least a reduction in sentence:

Medical Evidence: They argued that the medical examination showed no physical injuries on the child's private parts.
Delayed Complaint: They pointed out a delay in filing the First Information Report (FIR).
Advanced Age: They pleaded that at 83, the convict was old, had no prior criminal record, and had been out on bail throughout the trial without any issues.

Justice Shirsat systematically addressed each argument, placing the protection of children at the center of the legal discourse.

1. On Medical Evidence: The Court noted that the absence of visible physical injury does not mean an assault didn't happen. The medical officer had clearly testified that minor injuries to genitals can heal within 7 to 10 days. Since the examination happened after some time, the lack of scars was scientifically expected and did not disprove the victim's story.

2. On the Delay in FIR: The Court observed that in cases of sexual assault, especially involving children, families often hesitate due to social stigma and the trauma of the event. Justice Shirsat stated that a delay in such cases cannot be treated the same way as a delay in a theft or property dispute case.

3. On the Convict’s Age: The most crucial part of the judgment dealt with the convict's plea for mercy due to his 83 years of age. The Court was unmoved. Referring to the "fundamental grammar of sentencing," the Judge noted that mercy cannot be allowed to override the law.

"The Court cannot turn a Nelson’s eye to the age of the victim and the ordeal the victim has undergone," the bench held. The court emphasized that reducing the sentence would send the wrong message to society and fail to provide justice for the long-standing suffering of the girl, who has carried this trauma since 2012.

Upholding the 10-year sentence, the High Court dismissed the appeal and refused to grant a stay on the order. Martin Soares, the 83-year-old convict, has been ordered to surrender immediately to serve his remaining prison term.

This judgment is a reminder that in the eyes of the law, the severity of a crime against a child outweighs the "mercy" usually shown to senior citizens. It sets a strong precedent that age is not a "get out of jail free" card when it comes to heinous crimes like child sexual abuse.

The Bombay High Court has sent a clear message: the law stands with the victim, ensuring that the "rainbow of mercy" does not overshadow the dark reality of the crime committed.

Case Title: Martin Soares vs. State
Court: Bombay High Court (Goa Bench)
Presiding Judge: Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat