Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
Anuj Arya @ Dabbu – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 4349 of 2023
Decided On : 31-05-2024
BAIL - Rape and POCSO Act - Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC; Section 5L/6, 29, 35(2) POCSO Act - The court discussed the provisions of the IPC concerning kidnapping and rape, and the POCSO Act, particularly focusing on the presumption of guilt under Section 29 when the victim is a minor. The court emphasized the importance of the prosecutrix's testimony, referencing Supreme Court precedents that establish the reliability of a victim's statement in sexual assault cases. The court concluded that the applicant's bail was not warranted due to the serious nature of the allegations and the minor's status.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant has been in jail since March 6, 2022, accused of kidnapping and raping a minor girl under various sections of the IPC and the POCSO Act. The FIR was lodged after a significant delay, and the applicant claims he was falsely implicated. The prosecutrix alleged that the applicant established physical relations with her under false promises of marriage, which he later denied.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecutrix, being a minor, had consistently accused the applicant of rape, despite some variations in her statements. The court noted that the medical examination did not conclusively indicate rape but highlighted the prosecutrix's fear of the applicant and his family, which explained the delay in reporting the incident.
Issues: Whether the applicant should be granted bail considering the serious allegations of rape against a minor and the implications of the POCSO Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the testimony of the prosecutrix is crucial and can be sufficient for conviction if it inspires confidence. The presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the POCSO Act places the burden of proof on the accused, especially when the victim is a minor. The court emphasized the need for a swift trial in such cases.
Final Decision: The bail application was rejected, and the trial court was directed to expedite the trial proceedings, ensuring completion within nine months.
JUDGMENT :
RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard Sri H.G.S. Parihar, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Raghvendra Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Aniruddh Kumar Singh, learned AGA-I for the State and Sri Shiv Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the informant/ complainant.
2. As per learned Senior Advocate, the present applicant is in jail since 06.03.2022 in Case Crime No. 107 of 2022, under Sections 363, 366, 376 IPC and Section 5L/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station-Ashiana, District-Lucknow.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as he has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR, which was lodged on 05.03.2022 for the alleged incident dated 12.12.2021 and the aforesaid inordinate delay has not been explained.
4. As per the prosecution story, the present applicant has allegedly established physical relation with the prosecutrix/ child forcefully without her consent and has threatened her not to say anything to anyone otherwise she will have to face dire consequences. In her statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., she has narrated the prosecution story so indicated in the FIR and has submitted that she was very afraid from threatening so given by the applicant but when she became pregnant, she told the applicant about the fact, then he insisted her to take medicine to get the foetus aborted. However, she has not taken medicine. She has stated that this incident was within the knowledge of the family members of the applicant, more particularly his father was knowing this fact, who was Journalist by profession and he has also threatened her for dire consequences.
5. Further attention has been drawn towards the statement of the prosecutrix/ child recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein she has stated that the present applicant has established physical relation with her consent on the pretext of promise of marriage but when she became pregnant, the applicant has denied to get married, therefore, she made complaint to the family members of the applicant about the aforesaid fact but instead of helping her in this traumatic situation, they also threatened her for dire consequences in the same manner the present applicant had threatened her.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court towards the medical examination report, which indicates that hymen was not intact but it has not been indicated as to whether on account of alleged rape, the hymen was not intact. Learned Senior Advocate has further submitted that the complainant/ informant has recorded his statement wherein he has stated that when he came to know that his daughter was not traceable from 22.11.2021, he tried to find out her location; he came to know on 24.11.2021 that she was in the house of the father of the applicant. He reached there and requested that his daughter be permitted to go with him but the applicant and his father refused to send the daughter of the informant/ prosecutrix with him saying that his son, the present applicant, and the prosecutrix would get married very soon. On that, he informed the father of the applicant that his daughter was minor, even then they refused to send his daughter back to his home. Thereafter, the informant has said that he will approach the police; on that, they had taken his daughter to his home. Learned counsel has stated that if the aforesaid statements of the informant and the prosecutrix are taken on its face value, this Court would find that there are apparent variation in those statements. Learned counsel has also drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure No. 1 of the supplementary affidavit, which is a certified copy of the statement of the child wherein she has, however, levelled specific allegation against the present applicant but the prosecution story is not consistent.
7. Further submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the present a
The testimony of a minor victim in sexual assault cases is vital and can be sufficient for conviction, with the presumption of guilt resting on the accused under the POCSO Act.
The testimony of a minor victim in sexual assault cases is crucial and can be the sole basis for conviction if it is credible, and trials under the POCSO Act should be expedited.
The court established that the testimony of a minor victim in sexual assault cases is crucial and can stand alone for conviction, emphasizing the presumption of guilt under the POCSO Act when the vic....
The testimony of the prosecutrix in sexual assault cases is crucial and can be sufficient for conviction, with the presumption of guilt under the POCSO Act placing the burden of proof on the accused.
The gravity of the allegations and the impact of pandemic conditions on trial delays influenced the court's decision to dismiss the bail application.
Bail applications under serious charges involving minors require strong grounds for grant, especially when testimony is ongoing and credibility is in question.
The court considered the statement of the prosecutrix, completion of police investigation, and the young age of the petitioner in granting bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Even slightest penetration of penis into vagina without rupturing the hymen would constitute rape.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
