LAWS(UTN)-2016-3-21

VISHAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & ANOTHER

Decided On March 02, 2016
VISHAL Appellant
V/S
State of Uttarakhand and another Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In case crime no. 361 of 2015, relating to offences punishable under Sections 363, 366A, 376 IPC read with Section 3/4 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, registered with police station, Manglaur, the revisionist has been denied bail by Juvenile Justice Board, Haridwar, as affirmed by learned Special Judge (POCSO) / Addl. Sessions Judge, Haridwar and, hence, present criminal revision.

(2.) Allegedly, when the victim, aged 13 years, proceeded from her house to the school on the fateful day, i.e., 14.09.2015, at 07:00 A.M., and reached village Tashipur, police station Manglaur, District Haridwar, the juvenile in conflict with law, took her alongwith him and committed sexual assault. The juvenile in conflict with law is a student of B.A. (Ist year) and his date of birth is 16.07.1998. When the victim is under 16 years of age, her consent, if any, is immaterial in view of description six of Section 375 IPC. The Explanation appended to Section 375 IPC also says that penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape and, therefore, the injury to the victim is not necessary to constitute offence of rape. It has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Prithi Chand vs State of Himachal Pradesh, 1989 AIR(SC) 702, that mere absence of spermatozoa cannot cast a doubt on the correctness of the prosecution case.

(3.) Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care of Protection of Children) Act, 2000, deals with bail of a juvenile. It says, among other things, that the juvenile shall be released on bail, but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice. Considering the nature of offences alleged, this Court is of the opinion that the release of the juvenile in conflict with law (revisionist) on bail would defeat the ends of justice and, therefore, no interference is called for in the orders passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Haridwar and the appellate court.