SUNIL CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been filed by the bail/applicant/accused, under, Sec. 439 Cr. P.C., wherein he seeks indulgence, of his being ordered to be released from judicial custody, whereat he is extantly lodged, for, his allegedly committing offences, constituted under Sections 376, 120(B) of Penal Code and under Sec. 4 of the POCSO Act and Sec. 66(E) of IT Act, registered with Police Station, Sadar Solan.

(2.) The victim/prosecutrix, in her initial version, rendered on 21.8.2018, vis-visthe alleged occurrence, version whereof was forwarded to the Women Cell, (i) has not therein ascribed qua any of the bail-applicants/accused, any incriminatory role, of, theirs perpetrating sexual intercourse upon her. (ii) subsequently, on 31.8.2018, she proceeded, to, render a statement before the learned Magistrate in proceedings drawn under Sec. 164 Cr. P.C., wherein also she has not with any definitiveness, vis-visthe identity of any of the bailapplicants, who allegedly subjected her to forcible sexual intercourse, (iii) hence ascribed with assuredness, the afore role qua them, (iv) hence given the afore lack of apposite precision and, when the latter statement, is in dire conflict, and, in disharmony with her initial version, reported to the Women Cell, (v) thereupon this Court is constrained to, prima-facie, not impute any credibility, vis-à-vis, the version, rendered, qua the occurrence, by the prosecutrix.

(3.) The report of the FSL concerned has been received and, upon all the items/materials, sent to it, for analysis, a report, has emanated therefrom, qua it being not possible to fix the culpability of the accused, in the relevant occurrence. Moreover, in sequel to the occurrence, rather want of prompt medical examination of the prosecutrix, also constrains this Court to conclude that prima-facie, she is rearing a false version, qua the occurrence, hence rendering it to be unbelievable.