KHEM RAJ Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 30/2012 dated 07.02.2012, registered at Police Station,Dhalli, under Sections 376, 511 IPC. It has been stated that the above case has been registered at the instance of one Tara Chand and on account of registration of the case, the petitioner is apprehending his arrest in the above case. The petitioner is innocent, he has committed no offence. The petitioner has been falsely implicated by the complainant due to enmity. There is no legal evidence for connecting the petitioner with the commission of alleged offence. The petitioner is ready to join the investigation and furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. It has been stated that petitioner had earlier filed bail application which has been dismissed by learned Sessions Judge, Shimla, on 16.02.2012. The submission has been made for releasing the petitioner on bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

(2.) THE status report has been filed. It has been stated that case has been registered on the basis of rapat No. 22 dated 06.02.2012, Police Post, Sunni, recorded at the instance of the prosecutrix aged about 12 years. She has stated that on 06.02.2012 she had gone to the school, after the school she had gone to her grandmother's house at Mandoghat. On her return, petitioner met her. He offered to give Rs.100/ - to her and asked her to accompany him in bushes, she refused and started weeping. There was nobody nearby and it was about 5.00 P.M. The petitioner pulled her in the bushes and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her. She felt pain during the sexual intercourse. On hearing the calls of her sister Sheela Devi, the petitioner left her and ran away from the place. She narrated the incident to her sisters, the sisters and the prosecutrix narrated the incident to their mother also. The mother informed the father of the prosecutrix who was not in the house. On this the case was registered. The prosecutrix was got medically examined. The Medical Officer ruled out forcible sexual intercourse and thereafter Section 511 IPC was added. After the incident, the petitioner absconded and could not be traced.

(3.) HEARD and perused the record. As per date of birth certificate of the prosecutrix, her date of birth is 15.04.1999. The alleged occurrence took place on 06.02.2012. On the date of alleged occurrence the prosecutrix was thus about 12 years and 10 months. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner has stated that prosecution case is false inasmuch as prosecutrix has stated that she felt pain during sexual intercourse, but doctor has ruled out any sexual intercourse. He has also submitted that no injury was found on the person of the prosecutrix even though the allegation is that petitioner pulled her in the bushes and committed forcible sexual intercourse with her.