State v. Vinod Kumar) arising out of Case Crime No

prosecution version, the informant lodged an FIR on the basis of a written report at police station Purakalaandar, District Ayodhya on 22-11-2021. The report stated that a house construction work was being carried out at his place, in which a laborer, Vinod Kumar, was also engaged. On 22-11- 2021, he was busy in his agricultural field, and his wife and daughters stayed in the house. His two sons had gone to Darshan Nagar for some work. The laborer Vinod Kumar, finding seclusion, dragged his minor daughter aged 14 years in a room and gagged her mouth with cloth, and committed rape on her at around 11:00 AM. The FIR was lodged under Sections 376, 504, 506, 323, 342 and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act against the appellant on 22-11-2021 at 16:07 hours at the police station concerned. The Investigating Officer, S.H.O., Vijay Sen Singh, conducted an investigation and submitted charge sheet against the appellant under the said sections. The appellant was tried by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act-1st, and maximum sentence 20 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.25,000/- for major charge under Section has been awarded for the major charge under Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act, inter alia for other charges.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that PW-1, the father of the informant, has stated that he caught the accused and took him to the police station at the time of lodging the FIR. But his arrest has been 3 CRLA No. 688 of 2024 shown in the police station record on 23-03-2022. The place and time of the arrest of the appellant becomes highly doubtful.

7. She next submitted that as per the record, the appellant is held in jail custody since 23-11-2021. Thus, he has served more than four years of imprisonment till date. He also submitted that the first investigating officer (P.W.-5) admitted in cross-examination that the informant and victim had not shown any room, which was used as the place for keeping chaff. The accused was arrested on 23-11-2021. It is not so that the informant himself brought the accused together with him accompanied by his companions. The doctor, who conducted the medical-legal examination of the victim, has stated that no certain opinion can be given regarding rape; her internal organs were normal. Although in the school record, her date of birth is recorded as 05.02.2007, and, accordingly, her age has been determined as 14 years, 9 months, 17 days at the time of the incident, the said date of birth is itself doubtful, and the victim has stated that she got admission to the school in Class -VI, whereas the Principal of the school, who appeared as a witness before the court, has stated that she got admission in the school in Class VIII.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that witnesses of fact are partitioned and interested witnesses, but the Investigating Officer has not shown the place of occurrence on the site plan; the mother and sister of the victim who are said to be present in the home have not been produced in the evidence. In the FIR, the time of the incidence is not mentioned. PW-3, Dr. Sarita Singh, admitted in cross-examination that two abrasions found on the right and left sides of the back of victim could have been caused by scratching with nail. No marks of semen were found 4 CRLA No. 688 of 2024 on the clothes of the victim and accused on DNA testing in FSL report. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the case because there was some dispute between the informant and him regarding the payment of wages. The victim has shown the place of occurrence as the house where the chaff was kept, in her statement under section 164 CrPC. She stated in the said statement that her brother took the accused to the police station. Thus, the accused was produced before the police station. Thus, there is difference in version among informant, the victim and Investigating Officer as to how the accused was produced/ brought at the police station. The Investigating Officer has stated that he arrested him on

23.11.2021 from his native place village Samaharkala. Injuries are also found on person of the accused after his arrest as per his medical examination report. DNA samples were taken but no DNA report has surfaced in this case.

9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the offense is very serious in nature and the victim was less than 15 years of age at the time of the incident. There is no occasion for the victim or her father to falsely implicate the applicant, who was working as a laborer in connection with the construction of house at her place and is resident of different village. He next submitted that the doctor (PW3) has found two abrasions on the back of the victim at the time of the incident, which supports the prosecution version that the victim was subjected to sexual violence. The prosecution has duly proved its version by trustworthy evidence and the learned trial court in the impugned judgment has duly addressed the submissions of defence at the time of the arguments and also considered the medical and scientific evidence produced by the prosecution. There is no infirmity, factual or legal, in the 5 CRLA No. 688 of 2024 impugned judgement/order.

10. On perusal of record, it appears that there is a difference between the place and time of arrest as stated by PW-1 in his statement as well as in the statement of PW-5. The first Investigating Officer, Vijay Sen Singh recorded the date, place and time of arrest. According to PW-1, when he came to his residence after the incident, the accused was present there. He caught him and his son took him to the police station by getting him to sit on the pillion of a motorcycle. Whereas PW-5 has stated that he arrested the accused from his village, SamhaKala, on 23-11-2021. But this difference regarding the place, date and time of arrest in the ocular testimony and in the statement of the informant and the Investigating Officer is itself not sufficient to disbelieve the ocular testimony of the victim, who is a minor girl of 14 years, 9 months and 7 days of age, as per her scholar register and transfer certificate of her Class 5th examination, which is in variation with her medical age determination but former will have primacy in view of provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act. The CMO has ascertained the age of the victim as 17 years on the basis of the ossification test and the report of the Medical Board.

11. The trial court has given a finding on the basis of the school record of the victim as well as the age determination report of the CMO, she being below 18 years at the time of the incident. The victim has stated in her evidence that when she visited the police station, she had not taken with her, clothes worn by her at the time of the incident. Subsequently, her brother brought her clothes, worn at the time of the incident and handed them over at the police station. No blood or semen discharge was there in 6 CRLA No. 688 of 2024 the clothes. However, in scientific evidence produced by the Forensic Science Laboratory, blood was found on the panty of the victim, in which the blood was disintegrated. Therefore, its origin could not be traced. No blood was found on the scalp hair, pubic hair, vaginal smear slide, plezo tops of the victim, which were taken for DNA examination. In the underwear of the accused, also, no sperm or semen was found. In medico- legal examination of the victim was conducted for 7 hours of the incident on the same day. An abrasion, 5½ cm x 1 cm, linear cm over right side of the back reddish in colour and one reddish linear abrasion 12 cm above the left side of the back was found, which was reddish in colour.

12. Although PW-3 Dr. Sarita Singh stated in her cross examination that the abrasions were old hymen was found old torn but nothing like this has been written in her medical-legal report (Ex.ka-3). It is also stated in Ex.ka-3 that the hymen was torn. It is not stated therein that it was old torn. She has taken a bath after the incident and changed clothes; no other external or internal injury was found. One underwear, one T-shirt and one palazzo were worn by the victim at the time of the incident. Blood was found on underwear of the victim. According to PW-3, no definite opinion regarding rape can be given. She prepared a supplementary medical-legal report in her writing and signature, on which Ex.ka-4 was marked. There were reddish long abrasions on back of the victim. Therefore, it cannot be said that the medico legal report of the victim and FSL report have altogether negated the prosecution version. The victim has also stated that the accused had dragged her by the hand and took her in the room, in which chaff was kept and bolted the door, and committed rape on her. The accused was at that time at work in her courtyard and was cutting branches of a Neem tree in front of the house. He was 7 CRLA No. 688 of 2024 working at her house for the last two or three months. PW-1 has also stated that chaff was kept in the room where the incident occurred. He had pointed out the place to the Investigating Officer, although the first Investigating Officer had failed to earmark the place of incident in the site plan (Ex.Ka-11). Subsequently, the investigating officer had shown it in the site plan as pointed out by the informant and witness. No convincing reasons could be pointed out by the accused side to suggest that informant and victim falsely implicated the appellant. The FIR was lodged on the same day promptly.

13. In light of the foregoing discussions and giving due consideration to submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the impugned judgment and order, the nature of the evidence on which reliance has been placed by the learned court below, and keeping in view the gravity of the offense and supporting evidence and without expressing any definite opinion on the merits of the case, in my considered opinion, no case for bail / suspension of sentence is made out at this stage, even 4 years imprisonment undergone by the appellant is far less than half of the actual sentence awarded in the impugned judgment and order.

14. Consequently, the bail application of the appellant is dismissed.

15. List the appeal for hearing in due course.

16. The appellant can revive his prayer for bail in case his appeal is not decided in a year for reasons not attributable to him. December 10, 2025 KR (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)

prosecution version, the informant lodged an FIR on the basis of a written report at police station Purakalaandar, District Ayodhya on 22-11-2021. The report stated that a house construction work was being carried out at his place, in which a laborer, Vinod Kumar, was also engaged. On 22-11- 2021, he was busy in his agricultural field, and his wife and daughters stayed in the house. His two sons had gone to Darshan Nagar for some work. The laborer Vinod Kumar, finding seclusion, dragged his minor daughter aged 14 years in a room and gagged her mouth with cloth, and committed rape on her at around 11:00 AM. The FIR was lodged under Sections 376, 504, 506, 323, 342 and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act against the appellant on 22-11-2021 at 16:07 hours at the police station concerned. The Investigating Officer, S.H.O., Vijay Sen Singh, conducted an investigation and submitted charge sheet against the appellant under the said sections. The appellant was tried by the learned Special Judge, POCSO Act-1st, and maximum sentence 20 years' R.I. and a fine of Rs.25,000/- for major charge under Section has been awarded for the major charge under Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act, inter alia for other charges.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that PW-1, the father of the informant, has stated that he caught the accused and took him to the police station at the time of lodging the FIR. But his arrest has been 3 CRLA No. 688 of 2024 shown in the police station record on 23-03-2022. The place and time of the arrest of the appellant becomes highly doubtful.

7. She next submitted that as per the record, the appellant is held in jail custody since 23-11-2021. Thus, he has served more than four years of imprisonment till date. He also submitted that the first investigating officer (P.W.-5) admitted in cross-examination that the informant and victim had not shown any room, which was used as the place for keeping chaff. The accused was arrested on 23-11-2021. It is not so that the informant himself brought the accused together with him accompanied by his companions. The doctor, who conducted the medical-legal examination of the victim, has stated that no certain opinion can be given regarding rape; her internal organs were normal. Although in the school record, her date of birth is recorded as 05.02.2007, and, accordingly, her age has been determined as 14 years, 9 months, 17 days at the time of the incident, the said date of birth is itself doubtful, and the victim has stated that she got admission to the school in Class -VI, whereas the Principal of the school, who appeared as a witness before the court, has stated that she got admission in the school in Class VIII.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that witnesses of fact are partitioned and interested witnesses, but the Investigating Officer has not shown the place of occurrence on the site plan; the mother and sister of the victim who are said to be present in the home have not been produced in the evidence. In the FIR, the time of the incidence is not mentioned. PW-3, Dr. Sarita Singh, admitted in cross-examination that two abrasions found on the right and left sides of the back of victim could have been caused by scratching with nail. No marks of semen were found 4 CRLA No. 688 of 2024 on the clothes of the victim and accused on DNA testing in FSL report. The applicant has been falsely implicated in the case because there was some dispute between the informant and him regarding the payment of wages. The victim has shown the place of occurrence as the house where the chaff was kept, in her statement under section 164 CrPC. She stated in the said statement that her brother took the accused to the police station. Thus, the accused was produced before the police station. Thus, there is difference in version among informant, the victim and Investigating Officer as to how the accused was produced/ brought at the police station. The Investigating Officer has stated that he arrested him on

23.11.2021 from his native place village Samaharkala. Injuries are also found on person of the accused after his arrest as per his medical examination report. DNA samples were taken but no DNA report has surfaced in this case.

9. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that the offense is very serious in nature and the victim was less than 15 years of age at the time of the incident. There is no occasion for the victim or her father to falsely implicate the applicant, who was working as a laborer in connection with the construction of house at her place and is resident of different village. He next submitted that the doctor (PW3) has found two abrasions on the back of the victim at the time of the incident, which supports the prosecution version that the victim was subjected to sexual violence. The prosecution has duly proved its version by trustworthy evidence and the learned trial court in the impugned judgment has duly addressed the submissions of defence at the time of the arguments and also considered the medical and scientific evidence produced by the prosecution. There is no infirmity, factual or legal, in the 5 CRLA No. 688 of 2024 impugned judgement/order.

10. On perusal of record, it appears that there is a difference between the place and time of arrest as stated by PW-1 in his statement as well as in the statement of PW-5. The first Investigating Officer, Vijay Sen Singh recorded the date, place and time of arrest. According to PW-1, when he came to his residence after the incident, the accused was present there. He caught him and his son took him to the police station by getting him to sit on the pillion of a motorcycle. Whereas PW-5 has stated that he arrested the accused from his village, SamhaKala, on 23-11-2021. But this difference regarding the place, date and time of arrest in the ocular testimony and in the statement of the informant and the Investigating Officer is itself not sufficient to disbelieve the ocular testimony of the victim, who is a minor girl of 14 years, 9 months and 7 days of age, as per her scholar register and transfer certificate of her Class 5th examination, which is in variation with her medical age determination but former will have primacy in view of provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection) Act. The CMO has ascertained the age of the victim as 17 years on the basis of the ossification test and the report of the Medical Board.

11. The trial court has given a finding on the basis of the school record of the victim as well as the age determination report of the CMO, she being below 18 years at the time of the incident. The victim has stated in her evidence that when she visited the police station, she had not taken with her, clothes worn by her at the time of the incident. Subsequently, her brother brought her clothes, worn at the time of the incident and handed them over at the police station. No blood or semen discharge was there in 6 CRLA No. 688 of 2024 the clothes. However, in scientific evidence produced by the Forensic Science Laboratory, blood was found on the panty of the victim, in which the blood was disintegrated. Therefore, its origin could not be traced. No blood was found on the scalp hair, pubic hair, vaginal smear slide, plezo tops of the victim, which were taken for DNA examination. In the underwear of the accused, also, no sperm or semen was found. In medico- legal examination of the victim was conducted for 7 hours of the incident on the same day. An abrasion, 5½ cm x 1 cm, linear cm over right side of the back reddish in colour and one reddish linear abrasion 12 cm above the left side of the back was found, which was reddish in colour.

12. Although PW-3 Dr. Sarita Singh stated in her cross examination that the abrasions were old hymen was found old torn but nothing like this has been written in her medical-legal report (Ex.ka-3). It is also stated in Ex.ka-3 that the hymen was torn. It is not stated therein that it was old torn. She has taken a bath after the incident and changed clothes; no other external or internal injury was found. One underwear, one T-shirt and one palazzo were worn by the victim at the time of the incident. Blood was found on underwear of the victim. According to PW-3, no definite opinion regarding rape can be given. She prepared a supplementary medical-legal report in her writing and signature, on which Ex.ka-4 was marked. There were reddish long abrasions on back of the victim. Therefore, it cannot be said that the medico legal report of the victim and FSL report have altogether negated the prosecution version. The victim has also stated that the accused had dragged her by the hand and took her in the room, in which chaff was kept and bolted the door, and committed rape on her. The accused was at that time at work in her courtyard and was cutting branches of a Neem tree in front of the house. He was 7 CRLA No. 688 of 2024 working at her house for the last two or three months. PW-1 has also stated that chaff was kept in the room where the incident occurred. He had pointed out the place to the Investigating Officer, although the first Investigating Officer had failed to earmark the place of incident in the site plan (Ex.Ka-11). Subsequently, the investigating officer had shown it in the site plan as pointed out by the informant and witness. No convincing reasons could be pointed out by the accused side to suggest that informant and victim falsely implicated the appellant. The FIR was lodged on the same day promptly.

13. In light of the foregoing discussions and giving due consideration to submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of the impugned judgment and order, the nature of the evidence on which reliance has been placed by the learned court below, and keeping in view the gravity of the offense and supporting evidence and without expressing any definite opinion on the merits of the case, in my considered opinion, no case for bail / suspension of sentence is made out at this stage, even 4 years imprisonment undergone by the appellant is far less than half of the actual sentence awarded in the impugned judgment and order.

14. Consequently, the bail application of the appellant is dismissed.

15. List the appeal for hearing in due course.

16. The appellant can revive his prayer for bail in case his appeal is not decided in a year for reasons not attributable to him. December 10, 2025 KR (Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.)