JUDGMENT Nutan D. Sardessai, J. - Both these appeals take exception to the judgment of conviction dated 16/12/2014 passed by the learned President of the Children''s Court, Panaji pursuant to which she held the appellant No. 1 guilty of the commission of the offence punishable under Section 509 IPC and Section 2(m)(i) punishable under Section 8(2) of the Goa Children''s Act, 2003, ''the Act'' for short hereinafter, the appellant No. 2 i.e. accused No. 2 guilty of the commission of the offence punishable under Section 2(m)(i) punishable under Section 8(2) of the Act and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for a term of one year and directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each, in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of 1 year each and further sentenced the appellant No. 1 in particular to undergo simple imprisonment for a terms of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo a simple imprisonment for a period of three months, for the offence punishable under Section 509 I.P.C. 2. Heard Shri S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of both the appellants who invited attention to the evidence placed on record on behalf of the victim and the other witnesses and read through the entire impugned judgment to contend that no case whatsoever was made out against the appellant no.1 in particular for committing the offence of child abuse under Section 2 (m) (i) punishable under Section 8(2) of the Act and no offence whatsoever was made out against the other appellant i.e. the original accused No. 2 on any count. This was a fit case to allow the appeals and acquit both the appellants of the offences levelled against them. Shri S.R. Rivankar, learned Public Prosecutor came to be heard on behalf of the respondent-State in both the appeals who fairly conceded that there was no material to proceed against the 2nd appellant under Section 2 (m) (i) punishable under Section 8(2) of the Act. Insofar as the 1st appellant was concerned, it was his contention that there was material at the instance of the victim girl alone pointing out to the obscene gestures made by him and that it was not a case for a reversal of the judgment of conviction against the appellant No. 1. 3. Insofar as the 1st appellant was concerned, it was his contention that there was material at the instance of the victim girl alone pointing out to the obscene gestures made by him and that it was not a case for a reversal of the judgment of conviction against the appellant No. 1. 3. I would consider their submissions, the material on record and in that view of the matter decide the appeals appropriately. 4. The Sanguem Police had registered an offence against the two appellants on the case of the complainant that sometime on 10/03/2010 at 17.30 hours while the complainant was at the Sanguem Bus Stand, the appellant No. 1 had made a gesture with the intention to insult her modesty and thereafter the appellant No. 2 had made the same gesture at the residence of the victim girl in front of her mother and family members in order to outrage her modesty thereby attracting the offence under Section 509 r/w. 34 IPC and Section 8 of the Act. The prosecution had examined about 6 witnesses in support of their case. It would have to be seen whether on the basis of the material on record there was reason for the learned Children''s Court to sustain the conviction against the two appellants. Coming to the testimony of the victim herself, she had stated that the incident had taken place on 06/03/2010 after she had gone to the Sanguem Market to deliver milk in the Milk Society. At that time, the appellant No. 2 had called her to his shop whom she otherwise knew as they used to sell cashew nuts to him and he made a phone call from his mobile to one person. The said appellant had told that person that one girl had came to his shop and handed over the phone to her telling her to talk to that person. She could not understand what he was talking in Hindi and hence gave back the phone to the appellant No. 2 who again started talking in Konkani. She had thereafter left his shop and gone to buy a recharge voucher and as no voucher was available of the value of Rs. 180/-, she had gone to the phone booth and phoned one Babu reporting the nonavailability of the recharge voucher. She had thereafter left his shop and gone to buy a recharge voucher and as no voucher was available of the value of Rs. 180/-, she had gone to the phone booth and phoned one Babu reporting the nonavailability of the recharge voucher. She was again called to the shop of the 2nd appellant and when she saw one person with beard being the 1st appellant. He had asked her whether she would come to his house but she refused. He had insisted that he had a house and told her to sit on his motorcycle and that he would show her his house but she had refused and then started walking towards the fish market. 5. Her testimony indicates that she had seen the 1st appellant coming towards her, that she got frightened and started running towards the Panto (small rivulet) but he had started following her but in the meantime she had hid herself behind the big tree. He had gone away as he did not find her and she came out of her position behind tree and walked back to the bus stand and sat next to one girl on the second seat. The 1st appellant again came looking for her and told the girl sitting next to her to tell her to put up her head and she saw the 1st appellant searching for her in the bus. He saw her in the bus and again made same gestures towards her. She returned home on the same evening and told her mother about what had transpired. That very night the two appellants with their wives came to their residence and they prevailed on her to swear by the photograph of a God and state whether the incident had taken place and thereafter on 10/03/2010 i.e. 4 days later, she had lodged the complaint. 6. She had shown how the accused had gestured towards her by folding three of her fingers and keeping the thumb and little finger open and moving her hand. She had admitted during her cross-examination that the 1st appellant had not done anything to her in the bus and had got down from the bus and gone to the shop of the 2nd appellant. The 2nd appellant too had neither said anything bad to her nor did anything to her or made any gestures to her. She had admitted during her cross-examination that the 1st appellant had not done anything to her in the bus and had got down from the bus and gone to the shop of the 2nd appellant. The 2nd appellant too had neither said anything bad to her nor did anything to her or made any gestures to her. It was also nowhere her case that anybody else had witnessed the so called obscene gestures made by the 1st Appellant to her and more particularly that these gestures had affected her so much so that it had caused undue trauma to her or that she had felt debased or degraded by the said act. There was not even a whisper at her instance that she felt traumatized by the whole incident. This aspect of the matter assumes importance in the context of the definition of child abuse contained in 2(m)(i) and (ii) that "Child abuse" refers to the maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the child which includes any of the following:- (i) psychological and physical abuse, neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse and emotional maltreatment and (ii) any act by deeds or words which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being. From her narration it is apparent that no other act either of abuses and/or gesture was attributed by the victim girl to the 2nd appellant - Dilesh. It was also not her case that she felt humiliated, degraded or traumatized by the turn of events on account of the so called obscene gesture at the instance of the appellant No. 1. 7. Bhagi (Pw2) was the mother of the victim who had no doubt corroborated the victim for having gone to the market at Sanguem for supply of milk. As per her version she had sent the victim with milk to the society on 06/03/2010 during the evening time to deliver milk and thereafter again sent her on 08/03/2010 when she started crying and refused to go. In other words, there was absolute silence at her instance on the conduct, behaviour and demeanour of the victim between 6th and 7th and till she prevailed on her to go for the delivery of milk on 08/03/2010. In other words, there was absolute silence at her instance on the conduct, behaviour and demeanour of the victim between 6th and 7th and till she prevailed on her to go for the delivery of milk on 08/03/2010. It is only on 08/03/2010 and on enquiry she learnt from the victim that the 2nd appellant - Dilesh had called her to his shop, made her talk to somebody on his mobile and as she did not understand she had handed over the phone back to the appellant No. 2. The victim had rather disclosed to her that the 2nd appellant had called her to the shop and asked her whether she was willing to work in the house of the another person who was present and sporting a beard (appellant No. 1) which she had declined. The 1st appellant had told her that he had a big house, a vehicle, to sit in it and he would show it to her and she had again declined the offer. As per her version as disclosed to her mother, she had gone to the fish market to bring fish and found the 1st appellant following her and out of fear she went towards the Panto which is behind the market where he followed her. She hid beneath a tree while he waited almost for half an hour and went away and thereafter she came out and went towards the bus. 8. The victim had further disclosed to her that she had sat in the bus with her head down and had noticed that he was searching for her and made a signal to her companion to put up her head. When she looked out of the bus, the appellant No. 1 made an obscene gesture to outrage her modesty and she came home. She too described the incident as narrated to her by the minor victim. The victim''s mother who was deposing on the basis of what was told to her by the victim stated further that she went to deliver milk and at that time she visited the shop of the 2nd Appellant, made enquiries with him about the appellant No. 1 and prevailed on him that he should have told the 1st appellant not to misbehave with the minor. However, the 2nd appellant instead of being sympathetic came to assault her with a stool from his shop. However, the 2nd appellant instead of being sympathetic came to assault her with a stool from his shop. She had told him that she would not leave till he identified the 1st appellant to her and then the 2nd appellant told her to come the next morning. She was told by the victim at about 20.30 hours or so that the vehicle had come outside their house with the Appellant No. 2 and the victim identified the 1st appellant in the vehicle as the one who had misbehaved with her. They had come with their respective spouses. Unlike the victim she claimed that the 1st appellant dragged the victim by her hand and started insisting that he was not the person who had outraged her modesty by taking her near the photograph of their deity inside their house but the victim refused to swear and maintained that he was the person who had misbehaved with her. The 2nd appellant had also dragged her by catching hold of her hand towards the fireplace when she requested him to leave her hand and then it was followed by lodging of the complaint on 10/03/2010. Her cross-examination revealed that there was never an issue between her and the 2nd appellant about the delivery of cashewnuts over a period of time. Nothing substantially turns on her testimony when it was primarily based on hearsay and that too when it was two days after the alleged incident. 9. Babu (Pw-3) who is the cousin of the victim had corroborated her version on the phone call made by her to him on the non-availability of the mobile voucher. He had told her that there was a jatra in their village and he would come to collect her to go for jatra. He had gone to her house at about 6.00pm to take her for jatra when the victim told him about the 2nd appellant following her at Sanguem Market and he advised her to inform her mother about the same. There was otherwise no whisper about the alleged obscene gestures made to her by the appellant No. 1 and/or the appellant No. 2 as the case may be. There was otherwise no whisper about the alleged obscene gestures made to her by the appellant No. 1 and/or the appellant No. 2 as the case may be. It is only a little while later that he disclosed about the incident of she being called to the shop of the 2nd appellant and that the 1st appellant had called her to work in his house but she had got scared and ran towards the river. He had also made some obscene signal to her. It is rather surprising that the appellant No. 1 should choose a public place like a bus where there are people in the vicinity to make the so called obscene gestures to the victim girl which he could have very well done in the privacy of the shop of the appellant No. 2 where he was available. Besides, the testimony of the victim is not corroborated by any independent testimony and otherwise not inspiring confidence looking to the tenor of her statement and tested on the touchstone of cross-examination. 10. Sunanda (Pw-4), the sister of the victim had learnt about the obscene gestures made by the 1st appellant to the victim intending to outrage her modesty but she too was silent like her mother on the conduct, demeanour and the behaviour of the victim after the alleged incident. None of them stated that they had found her either disturbed or traumatized or distraught on account of the said obscene gesture made towards her by the 1st appellant in particular. Rather it is borne out from the evidence that she had gone alongwith her cousin Babu(Pw-2) for a jatra on the same evening of the incident. 11. Rajesh (Pw-5), the brother of the victim spoke about the incident of their visit to their house and taking the victim to the photograph of God and forcing to say that he was not a person who had chased her. His testimony too is of nil consequence to establish the incident which had purportedly taken place on the evening of 06/03/2010. P.I.Dessai (Pw-6) was the Investigating Officer who had conducted the investigation in the case. His testimony too is of nil consequence to establish the incident which had purportedly taken place on the evening of 06/03/2010. P.I.Dessai (Pw-6) was the Investigating Officer who had conducted the investigation in the case. It was rather borne out from his testimony that there was no enmity between the family of the complainant and the two appellants and that the mother of the victim was not present with her at the time of the alleged incident at the Sanguem market. In the circumstances, therefore, the learned Judge of the Children''s Court could not have hastily concluded that the appellant No. 1 in particular had made any gesture and that too an obscene gesture with an intention to insult the modesty of the minor victim girl and as to constitute an act of child abuse within the meaning of Section 2(m) of the Act. The learned Trial Judge was unduly swayed despite the absence of any cogent material to conclude that the incident stood established and that the victim girl was psychologically pressurized by the appellant No. 1. In that view of the matter, the learned Judge could not have proceeded to convict the appellant on a sheer preponderance of probabilities and proceeding on assumptions and presumptions. The impugned judgment therefore justifies interference in appeal. 12. In the result, i pass the following: ORDER i) Both the appeals stand disposed off as allowed. ii) The appellants are acquitted and the bail bonds executed by them shall stand discharged. iii) The fine amount deposited by the appellants shall be refunded to the appellants.