PRADEEP@PIDDI Vs. STATE OF NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks regular bail in case FIR No.363/2016 of PS Uttam Nagar for offence under Sec. 302/363/201 IPC & Sec. 6 POCSO Act. Today is the first hearing before this Bench. I have heard learned counsel for accused/applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor (APP) as well as learned counsel for complainant de facto.

(2.) Broadly speaking, the prosecution case is as follows. On 6/4/2016, FIR No.363/2016 was registered at PS Uttam Nagar on the statement of Shri Dharshan Singh, a labourer, reporting that his eight year old daughter, namely R, who was playing outside the house around 05:30pm, did not return home and despite efforts they could not search her out, and it appears that she has been kidnapped by someone. In the said FIR, the complainant de facto also mentioned the physical description and clothes worn by the girl child. In the course of investigation, one Sunil informed the police having seen R with her cousin, the accused/applicant, near the gate of stadium at about 07:00pm on the same day. The Investigating Officer interrogated the accused/applicant, but he denied his involvement. On 7/4/2016, DD No.34A was recorded at PS Uttam Nagar regarding discovery of dead body of a girl child behind the cremation ground of Kali Basti, Uttam Nagar. The dead body was identified by the complainant de facto as his daughter R. The post-mortem of the deceased child reflected death by strangulation. During further investigation, the accused/applicant absconded from his house and was later arrested. The forensic examination of the clothes of the deceased girl and the accused/applicant as well as the vaginal swab of the deceased girl reflected the DNA of the accused/applicant on all those exhibits. According to the investigation, the accused/applicant, after committing rape, strangulated the deceased girl and hid the dead body in a plastic bag in a pit. After completion of investigation, the local police filed a chargesheet against the accused/applicant for offences under Sec. 363/302/201 IPC and Sec. 6 POCSO Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for accused/applicant contends that the accused/applicant was falsely implicated in this case under public pressure and glare of media trial, otherwise why would the accused/applicant, after dumping the body in the plastic bag, go back to the spot and shift the dead body to the muddy pit after taking it out of the bag. Learned counsel for accused/applicant also refers to the post-mortem report to argue that there is doubt as regards the time of death. Further, it is contended by the learned counsel for accused/applicant that the entire autopsy was carried out within one hour, which creates doubt over its correctness. Lastly, it is argued that the accused/applicant has been in jail for past about 09 years and 04 months and cannot be confined indefinitely.