KAMAL NAYAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks regular bail in FIR No. 1190/2016 Police Station Samaipur Badli initially registered under Sections 363 & Section 6 of POCSO Act and subsequently, charge-sheet has been filed under Sections 376/363/366 IPC.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has been falsely implicated as the prosecutrix had voluntarily gone with the petitioner to his village where they got married. He submits that the prosecutrix has appeared before the trial Court and in her statement recorded on 05.06.2018, categorically stated that she left with the petitioner on 28.11.2016, on her will and there after they got married. He submits that the prosecutrix was over 16 years of age when she left her home with her own consent.

(3.) Learned counsel submits that in view of exception 2 to Section 375 IPC, sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under 15 years of age, is not rape. He submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by Exception 2 and from the testimony of the prosecutrix no offence is made out under Sections 375/376.