MEENA DEVI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) Third bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant.

(3.) It is the contention of the learned senior counsel for the applicant that the statement of the father of the victim has already been recorded, who has not supported the prosecution version. It is further submitted that father of the victim in his cross examination has stated that he is illiterate and he did not disclose date of birth to the teacher and the teacher on his own mentioned date of birth of the victim by considering his physique. Father of the victim also admitted in his cross examination that FIR was lodged at the dictation of the S.O. concerned.