The grant of bail is justified when medical evidence contradicts allegations of sexual assault.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)

12 06-02-2026 I.A. No.02 of 2025 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This is an application seeking suspension of sentence and release of the appellant on bail during pendency of the appeal.

3. The appellant has been convicted and sentenced vide judgment and order dated 05.08.2022 and 10.08.2022 respectively passed by the learned Special Judge, Exclusive POCSO Court- cum-Additional District and Sessions Judge-VI, Kaimur at Bhabhua in connection with POCSO Case No.55 of 2020 arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No.83 of 2020 and has been ordered to undergo a sentence of rigorous imprsionment for 20 years with a fine of Rs.20,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 4 (2) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short ‘POCSO Act’) and in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

4. Earlier the identical prayer made on behalf of the appellant in the memorandum of appeal was not pressed by and on behalf of the appellant keeping his rights reserved to seek same relief as and when advised.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in this case the victim (PW-1) has alleged as under:-

“That on 05.11.2020 at about 1.00 PM while she went outside for grazing she-goat, her co-villager, namely, Anuj Singh (the appellant) caught her and took her near the bank of river and committed rape on her and on her shouting he fled away by his bicycle. Thereafter, she came to her house and narrated the entire story to her mother.”

6. It is his submission that even as the victim claims that the appellant had given her a teeth bite on her cheek, the doctor has found one abrasion in the nature of a simple injury on the right side of the cheek said to have been caused by hard and blunt object.

7. It is submitted that the medical examination rules out a case of commission of sexual act with the victim as alleged by her. In the findings on local examination of the genital parts, the doctor has not noticed any injury on the labia majora or labia minora. The hymen perineum has been found intact. There is no bleeding/tear/discharge or tenderness.

8. Learned counsel submits that the FSL report (exhibit-

07) opines that blood could not be detected in any of the exhibits marked ‘A’, ‘B/1’ and ‘B/2’, ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’. Similarly semen could not be detected in any of the exhibits marked ‘A’, ‘B/1’, ‘B/2’, ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’.

9. It is further pointed out that in course of trial, though in the examination-in-chief the victim claims that she was subjected to commission of rape at the bank of the river but in her cross-examination in paragraph ‘9’ she has clearly stated that she was wearing Salwar and Frock and when the appellant took her inside the river and gave her a cut on to her cheek, there was no bleeding and on her shouting the appellant fled away by his bicycle. It is, thus, submitted that according to her own statement, the appellant is said to have fled away on her shouting.

10. Learned counsel further submits that the defence has set up a case in the cross-examination of the victim wherein the victim has stated in paragraph ‘13’ of her deposition that her father has no agricultural plot, he used to do agricultural work on the land of others and that she was taking her she-goat for grazing everyday. It was the case of the defence that in course of grazing the she-goat, the victim was taking her she-goat in the plots of the appellant which was objected to and in course of the said objection, the appellant had a quarrel with the vic