ASHOK PURI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has been facing allegations of rape since 19.2.2000. It is alleged that he has raped the prosecutrix, a minor girl on 23.1.2000. The FIR has been registered on 19.2.2000 at the instance of her brother. It is also the allegation that step-father, the mother and her other brother connived in the commission of the crime. In the statement made before the police, the prosecutrix has corroborated her story as put forward in the FIR. However, she also stated that she is pregnant by five months from the loins of the accused. The petitioner is a dismissed D.S.P. When the allegation was made that he fathered the child of the prosecutrix, he immediately offered himself for D.N.A. examination. Consequently, the D.N.A. report has been received. In this report it is categorically stated that the petitioner is not the father of the child of the prosecutrix. Mr. Sran has, however, vehemently argued that the evidentiary value of the D.N.A. report will be seen at the time of the trial. At present, it is sufficient to notice that the allegation against the petitioner is that he has raped a minor girl.

(2.) IN normal circumstances, this Court would have no sympathy with an accused person who is alleged to have committed rape of a minor girl. However, the facts and circumstances of this case are as such that prima facie, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner may be falsely implicated in the case. In the petition, the details have been given about the rivalry of the petitioner with other police officials. The D.N.A. report prima facie tends to show that the prosecution story may well concocted. Apart from this, there is a delay of 26 days in lodging of FIR. There are different versions also with regard to the age of the prosecutrix. In the school certificate, the date of birth given is 22.2.1984. In the certificate of birth, the date of birth given in 7.3.1983. The Ossification test indicates that the age of the prosecutrix was 17 years. However, it would be inappropriate to make any comments on the evidentiary value of the facts narrated above. These will have to be seen at the stage of the trial. The petitioner has already been dismissed from service. He is in custody for over one year. Further proceedings in the trial court have been stayed in the Transfer Application-Crl.Misc. No. 13049-M of 2000, pending in this Court. The trial is likely to take a considerable period of time. There is hardly any chance of the petitioner interfering with the evidence or the prosecution witnesses.