IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO. 33 OF 2010 MR. SHYAM ALIAS GHANSHYAM VITHAL HUMRASKAR ... Petitioner Versus STATE OF GOA, THROUGH WOMEN POLICE STATION, PANAJI, REP. BY P.P ... Respondent Shri S. D. Patil with Shri T. George John, Advocates for the Applicant. Shri C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for the Respondent. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 16th August, 2010 P.C.:- Heard. The Petitioner herein is accused no.3 in Special Case No.53 of 2009. By Order dated 28-7-2010, the Petitioner has been ordered to be charged and tried along with some other accused under Section 8(2) r/w Section 2(y)(i) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003. The Petitioner has not been charged under Section 376 I.P.C. There is no dispute that on or about 8-11-2006 when the offences are alleged to have been committed by the Petitioner and other accused, the victim was 16 years of age. Shri Patil, the learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner, as accused no.3, could not have been charged under Section 8(2) r/w Section 2(y)(i) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003 because he has not been charged under Section 376 I.P.C. as the victim was 16 years of age. According to the learned Counsel, Section 2(y)(i) defines the offence of "Grave Sexual Assault", inter alia, to include rape and Section 2(d) proviso states that in so far as a victim in an offence of rape is concerned, "child" will mean a person who has not completed 16 years of age, and since the Petitioner has not been charged for an offence of rape he could not be charged for an offence under Section 8(2) r/w Section 2(y)(i) of the Act. I am not impressed with the submissions made. If at all anybody was to have grievance for non framing a charge under Section 376 I.P.C., it would have been the State, and not the accused. Several statements of the victim appear to have been recorded. In one of the statements, the victim alleged that the accused had sexual intercourse with her by force. On given facts, an offence punishable under more than one provision of law can be committed. In case force was used, the facts would have disclosed two distinct offences, one under Section 376 I.P.C. and the other under Section 8(2) of the Children's Act, 2003 as the victim is a child she being under 18 years of age. In other words, there is no dispute that the age of the victim in the instant case is below 18 years, and as such, she qualifies to be a child as defined under the Act. Because the Petitioner as accused no.3, has not been charged under Section 376 I.P.C. does not mean that he could not be charged under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003. This has nothing to do with the framing of charge under Section 8(2) r/w Section 2(y)(i) of the Goa Children's Act, 2003. The learned Children's Court on being satisfied from the materials produced that there is prima facie evidence to frame the charge against the Petitioner/A-3 has proceeded to frame the same under Section 8(2) r/w Section 2(y)(i) of the Act. There is no error in doing so. In my view, there is no merit in this revision, and accordingly the revision petition is hereby rejected. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.