IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.
Chndra Prakash Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another – Respondents
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 37253 of 2021
Decided On : 07-04-2022
POCSO Act, 2012 - Sections 5/6 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 354, 376, 376A-B - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 161 164 and 439 - Application for Bail - Sexual Offence – Punishment for Rape - Complainant, who is mother of the victim lodged first information report hours with regard to an incident which took place against the applicant for alleged offence under Sections 354, 376 IPC and Sections 5/6 POCSO Act alleging inter-alia that today her daughter aged about 8 years went beside her house to pluck guava from guava tree where the applicant was kissing her daughter by sitting her on his lap and thereafter raped her by took off her panty - She came home and told the entire incident to her and her mother-in-law, on same day, victim was medically examined in which doctor opined that sexual violence cannot be ruled out - Victim in her statements under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has made allegation of rape against the applicant reiterating prosecution case as mentioned in the first information report - Even slightest penetration of penis into vagina without rupturing the hymen would constitute rape.
Findings of the Court:
Court find that if rape is committed by a man on a little girl under twelve years of age, according the provisions of Section 376A-B of Indian Penal Code, he shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which means that the accused shall be in prison for the remainder of his natural life, and with fine or with death - Having examined the matter in its entirety court do not find any material or cogent reason at this stage to presume the false implication of the applicant - Court is also of considered view that depth of penetration is immaterial in an offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C.
Result: Application rejected.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.
1. Heard Mr. Virendra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Rabindra Kumar Singh learned Additional Government Advocate assisted by Mr. Ajay Singh, learned Brief holder representing the State.
2. By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 219 of 2021, under Sections 354, 376 IPC and Sections 5/6 POCSO Act, police station Bansgaon, district Gorakhpur seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.
3. As per prosecution case, in brief, the complainant, who is mother of the victim lodged the first information report on 16.07.2021 at 17:07 hours with regard to an incident which took place on 16.07.2021 against the applicant Chandra Prakash Sharma for the alleged offence under Sections 354, 376 IPC and Sections 5/6 POCSO Act alleging inter-alia that today on 16.07.2021, her daughter aged about 8 years went beside her house to pluck guava from guava tree where the applicant was kissing her daughter by sitting her on his lap and thereafter raped her by took off her panty. She came home and told the entire incident to her and her mother-in-law. Thereafter, on the same day, i.e. on 16.07.2021, the victim was medically examined in which doctor opined that sexual violence cannot be ruled out. Victim in her statements under Section 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. has made allegation of rape against the applicant reiterating the prosecution case as mentioned in the first information report. The statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is reproduced herein-below:
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case. No mark of injury has been found on the body of the victim and hymen of the victim was found intact and no fresh injury or bleeding was seen at the time of her medical examination. The victim in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has not stated that the applicant has committed rape on her, as such, no offence is made out against him. The applicant does not have criminal history to his credit. His bail application has been wrongly rejected by the concerned Court below. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is languishing in j
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.