SANJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Bail petitioner namely Sanjay Kumar, who is behind the bars since 10.9.2020, has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 439 of Cr.PC., for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 103 of 2020 dated 9.9.2020, under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act, registered at P.S. Nirmand, District Kullu, H.P.

(2.) Record/Status filed by the respondent-State in terms of order dated 3.11.2020, reveals that on 9.9.2020, complainant namely Ganesh Dutt, lodged a complaint at PS Nirmand, District Kullu, H.P., alleging therein that his minor daughter victim-prosecutrix (named withheld) has gone missing. Complainant disclosed to the police that at 7:30 pm, some villagers from his village informed him that his daughter has gone somewhere without informing anybody. Complainant stated to the police that he has made best efforts to locate his minor daughter in near relations, but she is not traceable and as such, appropriate action may be taken to trace her. On 10.9.2020, victim-prosecutrix came to be apprehended with the bail petitioner near village Joa. Police after recording the statement of victim-prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.PC., lodged FIR detailed herein above, against the bail petitioner under Sections 363, and 376 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act and since then, he is behind bars.

(3.) Victim-Prosecutrix in her statement recorded before the JMIC, Anni, District Kullu under Section 164 Cr.PC, stated that she of her own volition and without there being external pressure had gone with the bail petitioner and they both wanted to solemnize marriage. Record reveals that though initially, victim-prosecutrix refused to undergo medical test, but subsequently, she was medically examined by the medical officer, CH Nirmand, District Kullu, who after having examined victim-prosecutrix at CH Nirmand opined as under "After examining the victim, my opinion about there are neither genital or physical injuries present suggestive of no use of force however sexual assault cannot be ruled out. But final opinion reserved till receipt of sample report from RFSL". Subsequently, aforesaid medical officer on the basis of RFSL report No. 1506 opined as under "(1) Semen and blood were not detected in exhibit-1a (pubic hair), exhibit 1b (vaginal swabs), exhibits 1d (vulval swab), exhibit 1e (shirt), exhibit 1f (Salwar), exhibit 1y (vest) and exhibits 1h (underwear) of victim (8) human semen was detected in exhibits 1C (vaginal slides) but blood was not detected on it. So I am of the opinion that she was undergone sexual intercourse." After completion of the investigation, challan stands filed in the competent court of law but till date, charge has not been framed.