KRISHAN PAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAYER in this petition, filed under Section 439, Cr.P.C., is for grant of bail to the petitioner, Krishan Pal who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 376, 506, IPC, and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, in a case arising out of FIR No. 341, dated 20.11.2014, registered at Police Station Rai, District Sonepat. Learned counsel contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. The medical evidence collected by the prosecution would not connect the petitioner with the alleged offences since the injuries were not found on the person of the prosecutrix. Even the FSL report negates the commission of rape since semen was not detected on any of the objects sent for chemical examination. He further contends that father of the prosecutrix has been examined as PW -11 and during cross -examination he was constrained to admit that prior to the registration of the present case a complaint was lodged with the police for outraging the modesty of the sister of the prosecutrix by Pona, cousin of the petitioner. He further admitted during cross -examination that Rampal was his brother and he too had lodged a complaint with the police for outraging the modesty of his daughter by Dharmi, an uncle of the petitioner. He also points out that the alleged occurrence had taken place on 19.11.2014 while the matter was reported to the police on the next date which also creates dent in the prosecution version.

(2.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the State points out that as many as 13 prosecution witnesses out of 14 have been examined and the prosecution is likely to conclude its evidence in near future. He further submits that the prosecutrix has fully supported the prosecution version during her deposition before the trial Court.

(3.) CONCEDEDLY , the prosecutrix has already been examined by the learned trial Court and, as such, there is no threat perception to the prosecutrix that she would be won over. The medical evidence is not connecting the allegations of rape. Enmity to falsely implicate the petitioner in the present case would be a moot point during trial. The petitioner is behind bars since 20.11.2014.