A prima facie evaluation necessitates bail when conflicting evidence undermines the prosecution’s case.

JUDGMENT :

RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. Records have been placed before this Court to consider the prayer of the appellant for suspension of his sentence and release on bail during pendency of the appeal.

3. The appellant has been convicted vide judgment dated 19.02.2025 and sentenced vide order dated 04.03.2025 in POCSO Case No. 108 of 2018, CIS No. 108 of 2018 arising out of Muffasil P.S. Case No. 364 of 2018 passed by learned Court of Special Judge, POCSO Court-cum-District and Additional Sessions Judge- VI, Gaya, for the offence punishable under Sections 376 AB of the Indian Penal Code (in short ‘I.P.C.’) and Section 06 of the POCSO Act and has been ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life that means for remainder of that person’s natural life and a fine of Rs. 30,000/- for the offence under Section 06 of the POSCO Act.

4. The prosecution case is based on the written information submitted by the mother of the victim (PW-2). In her written information, she alleged that when she was outside her house on 13.10.2018 and had left behind her three minor children in the house, this appellant entered her house and committed rape with the victim. Her husband came at 6 P.M., on 15.10.2018 and she did not disclose it to him immediately, however, in the night when she disclosed this occurrence to her husband then he became angry and thereafter they went to the police station on 16.10.2018 to lodge the present case.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that it is a clear case of false implication of the appellant. The Attention of this Court has been drawn towards the disposition of the informant (PW-2). In paragraph no. 15 of her disposition she has stated that the marriage of her daughter (victim) was fixed with this appellant but for some reason the marriage could not take place. The defense suggested to her that because the marriage did not take place, therefore, this false case has been lodged against the appellant.

6. It is further submitted that the PW-2 admitted in her deposition that the trousers and pant of the victim were not given to Daroga Ji or to the Doctor. The Doctor (PW-1), who had medically examined the victim, has stated that there was no sign of recent sexual intercourse at the time of examination.

7. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards the deposition of the father of the victim who has deposed as (DW-2) in this case. The father of the victim has stated in Paragraph No. 4 of his deposition that the appellant had not committed any wrong act with his daughter. He has also stated that his daughter had not disclosed the occurrence to him and she had also not said anything against the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in such circumstance, the victim of the case seems to be a tutored witness and the case has been lodged at the instance of her mother (PW-2) only because the marriage between the appellant and the victim could not be solemnized for some other reason.

8. The prayer has been opposed by learned counsel for the informant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

9. It is submitted that the victim has supported the prosecution case therefore her testimony is to be considered.

10. Having regard to the entire materials on the record which we have prima facie gone through and the submissions noted hereinabove, for a prima facie opinion we have noticed that in this case the informant (PW-2), who is the mother of the victim, has admitted that the marriage between the victim and the appellant was earlier fixed but had not taken place for some reason. She has alleged that the occurrence took place in her absence on 13.10.2018 and had disclosed the fact to her husband in the night of 15.10.2018 but her husband has appeared as the (DW-2) and has clearly stated that he was not told about the occurrence and the appellant had