DHARAMBIR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is seeking grant of regular bail under Sec. 439 Cr.PC in case FIR No.681 dtd. 7/11/2020 under Ss. 341, 342, 376(2)(n), 376(2)(f), 376-D IPC registered at Police Station City Karnal, District Karnal.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that on 3/10/2020, the prosecutrix went missing from her house, as a result of which, FIR No.281 dtd. 4/10/2020 under Sec. 346 IPC at Police Station Sadar Safidon was lodged by her mother. At the time of registration of aforementioned FIR, the mother of the prosecutrix did not raise any suspicion qua the involvement of any person much less the petitioner. She further submits that after her recovery on 4/11/2020, prosecutrix got her statement recorded under Sec. 164 Cr.PC wherein she stated that she had gone to Shimla of her own accord and stayed there for 15 days in the house of a friend. Thereafter, she had gone and stayed in the house of one Akritiat Karnal for one week and thereafter, she met the police in Karnal and expressed her desire to return home. Learned counsel contends that in her first statement recorded under Sec. 164 Cr.PC, the prosecutrix did not name anyone much less the petitioner nor levelled any allegation of wrong doing against any person. She further submits that it was after three days i.e. on 7/11/2020, the prosecutrix got her second statement recorded under Sec. 164 Cr.PC wherein she came up with an altogether different version by stating that she had got her first statement under Sec. 164 Cr.PC recorded under the pressure of not only her mother but co-accused Aman and the petitioner. While inviting the attention of this Court to her second statement recorded under Sec. 164 Cr.PC, which stands reproduced in the petition, learned counsel submits that she had come up with a totally unbelievable version to the effect that while travelling in a bus from Rohru to Karnal alongwith two other boys Anees and Ashok, she met the petitioner and co-accused Aman with whom she started talking. Thereafter, both of them including the petitioner took her to the fields in Karnal where they raped her. Learned counsel still further submits that in the said statement, she also alleged that co-accused Aman forcibly solemnized marriage with her on 29/10/2020 and kept her confined in his home. She, thus, submits that the story, which has been brought forth, on the face of it, is nothing but a bundle of lies. It has also been submitted that the two statements made under Sec. 164 Cr.PC, which are at complete variance with each other, create a big question mark about their authenticity, more so, since there was no medical evidence also on record to corroborate the allegations levelled with respect to the petitioner having forcibly raped her. It has beensubmitted that as the petitioner has been in custody since 8/11/2020 and the sole material witness i.e. prosecutrix has been examined during trial, his further incarceration would not serve any useful purpose. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner is a man of clean antecedents and is not involved in any other criminal case much less of similar nature.

(3.) Per contra, learned State counsel on instructions from L/SI Babita Rani has not been able to controvert that the prosecutrix, who admittedly is an adult, had come up with different versions while getting her statements recorded under Sec. 164 Cr.PC on 4/11/2020 and 7/11/2020. He has further conceded that the MLR of the prosecutrix did not reveal any external or internal injury on her person even though she had alleged that she had been physically assaulted by the accused while she was in their custody. He, however, on instructions submits that the prosecutrix while stepping into the witness box had reiterated her allegations against the petitioner which she had levelled in her second statement recorded under Sec. 164 Cr.PC on 7/11/2020.