IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA CRIMINAL APPLICATION ( MAIN ) NO. 188 OF 2010 STATE (THROUGH TUKARAM PUNDALIK WALKE, PSI, BICHOLIM POLICE STATION ... Applicant Versus SUBHANI DESSAI ... Respondent Mr. C. A. Ferreira, Public Prosecutor for the Appellant. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 27th July, 2010 P.C.: Heard Shri Ferreira, the learned Counsel on behalf of the State. 2. The State seeks leave to appeal against the acquittal of the accused under Sections 354 IPC r/w Section 8(2) of the Goa Childrens Act, 2003. The incident according to the prosecution took place on 16/10/2007 between 7.30 hrs. to 8.00 hrs, in the corridor of the school named Our Lady of Grace High School, Bicholim, when the victim, a girl student of about 11 years of age was sexually assaulted by one unknown male person. 3. The complaint was filed by the headmistress of the school on 20/10/2007, and this was filed on the basis of the information given by the mother of the said victim, who had stated to her, that the victim had identified the accused while coming to school and her mother had told her that she had gone to the police station and the police had told her that the complaint had to be filed by headmistress. According to the said mother of the victim, the victim had identified the accused as she went to school on 19/10/2007. However, the learned trial Court has come to the conclusion that 18th and 19th were holidays and the victim could not have gone to school. The accused was arrested on 20/10/2007 and the learned trial Court observed and in my view rightly, that the Investigation Officer did not provide any explanation as to on what basis the accused was arrested by them. The learned trial Court has also found that the description given by the victim of the assailant did not fit in to the description of the accused and therefore the learned trial Court has come to the conclusion that the possibility of identifying wrong person could not be ruled out. Lastly, the learned trial Court has observed that no efforts were made by the Investigating Officer to identify the assailant and there is absolutely no material in the deposition of the PW6/PSI Walke to show as to how and by whom the present accused was identified as the assailant of the victim. 4. Considering the facts of the case, in my opinion this is not a fit case to grant leave to appeal. Application dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. NH