LAWS(RAJ)-2019-5-260

SHIVKUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On May 15, 2019
SHIVKUMAR Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal under Sec. 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the SC/ST Act') has been filed on behalf of the appellant being aggrieved with the order dtd. 27/4/2019 passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act Cases, Merta (hereinafter to be referred as 'trial court') in Criminal Misc. Case No. 34/2019, whereby the trial court has dismissed the bail application filed on behalf of the appellant.

(2.) The appellant has been arrested in FIR No. 158/2018 of Police Station Chitawa, District Nagaur for the offences punishable under Ss. 363, 366, 376(2)(J)(N) and 376(3) IPC and Sec. 3(2)(v)(va) SC/ST Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant has falsely been implicated in this case and the police have filed charge-sheet against him under the POCSO Act without ascertaining the correct age of the prosecutrix. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the police have concluded that on the date of incident the age of the prosecutrix was around 13 years and 8 months while relying upon the certificate issued by the Adarsh Government Girls Higher Secondary School, Kukanwali, Nagaur. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the said certificate was issued on 19/12/2018, in which the date of birth of the prosecutrix is mentioned as 1/2/2005 while certifying that she took admission in 7th Standard on 28/8/2014. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that as per the said certificate the prosecutrix took admission in the 7th Standard at the age of 9 years which is quite impossible. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that the police have not conducted ossification test for ascertaining the correct age of prosecutrix. It is argued that as a matter of fact the prosecutrix is major and relation between her and the appellant were consensual. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecutrix eloped with the appellant as per her own free will and lived with him for about 10 to 15 days at Ahmedabad. It is also submitted that the charge-sheet has been filed and the trial of the case will take time.