MAHESH RAM Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Applicant Mahesh Ram, who is in judicial custody in Case Crime No.0023 of 2021, under Ss. 376(2)(i) and 506 of IPC and Sec. 5/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station Pati, District Champawat, has sought his release on bail.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on file.

(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the applicant/accused is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the case due to land dispute between the parties; that, the place of incident is also doubtful; and that, the applicant is languishing in jail since 4/11/2021. He would further submit that three witnesses i.e. PW1 victim/prosecutrix, PW2 complainant/father of the prosecutrix and PW3 Doctor, who medically examined the victim after the alleged sexual assault, have been examined in the trial court. He would submit that there are material contradictions in the evidence of the prosecutrix as PW1 and the complainant/father of the prosecutrix as PW2, which creates doubt in the prosecution story. He would take the Court to the statements of the prosecutrix recorded in the trial court (Annexure-1 to the Rejoinder Affidavit) and would submit that the prosecutrix stated that the applicant/accused met her at 9:00 p.m. and took her to a room where he committed sexual assault upon her but it is not stated by her that she raised any hue or cry when she was raped. Counsel for the applicant would also refer para 5 of the statement of PW2 Complainant/ father of the prosecutrix (Annexure-2 to the Rejoinder Affidavit) and would submit that he has stated that there is no house near the shop of Pani Ram and the incident took place in the house of the Bisan Chandra Joshi, and there are 7-8 houses near the house of Joshi Ji.