Syopur M.p. (At Present Confined At District Jail Karauli) v. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p

Judgment

2. Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p Suresh S/o Kuttan, R/o Dhoreta Thana Mandrayal District Karauli

3. Chaina W/o Dharm Singh, R/o Dhoreta Thana Mandrayal District Karauli ----Respondents For Petitioner(s)

: Mr. Abdul Rahim Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anupam Sharma Mr. Vijay Singh Yadav, PP HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN 17/04/2025 Order

1. Instant SOS application is preferred by applicant-accused- Deepak @ Deepu S/o Jagnu in pending appeal filed aggrieved from judgment of conviction and sentence dated 16.09.2023 in Sessions Case No.44/2022 passed by learned Special Judge (POCSO Act Cases) Karauli, whereby applicant-accused was convicted and sentenced under Sections 363, 366, 376(2N) IPC and Section 5(L)/6 POCSO Act. The maximum sentence awarded to applicant is 20 years. [2025:RJ-JP:16490] (2 of 5) [SOSA-281/2024]

2. Learned counsel for applicant submits that this is a false and concocted case against the present applicant. He further referred the report dated 29.11.2021 submitted by father-in-law of victim about missing of her daughter-in-law from night of 23.11.2021 and submitted that no specific allegation was leveled against the applicant-accused. He submits that on basis of MPR No.04/2021, FIR No.161/2021 was registered at P.S. Mandrayal. District Karauli, but delay was not explained. He also submits that during investigation, police on basis of medical age (ossification test) has added POCSO Act, considering victim to be between 16 to 18 years. He further referred the medical conducted on 22.12.2021 and submitted that no sign of injuries were found on genital of victim. He further submitted that after medical on 22.12.2021, the samples were seized on 28.12.2021 and the delay in forwarding the samples to FSL was not explained by prosecution. He further submitted that as per victim, she was raped in Indore, but police has not prepared any site plan of Indore. He also submitted that victim was examined as PW-2 and her testimony is not trustworthy. He further referred the circumstantial evidence of the case and submitted that victim has traveled to Sheopur then to Rajkot and then to Indore, but she never made any hue and cry while traveling one place to another place. He further submitted that the Trial Court has ignored the contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of victim. He also referred the acquittal order of co-accused Veerpal and submitted that on identical evidence, the co-accused Veerpal was acquitted by the Trial Court, but present accused was convicted on same set of evidence. At last, he submitted that the disposal of appeal will [2025:RJ-JP:16490] (3 of 5) [SOSA-281/2024] take its own time, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for complainant. Learned counsel for complainant submitted that next day after the missing of victim, the matter was reported to police and MPR was registered, thus, there was no delay. He also referred the statement of victim and submitted that she remained firm from her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to the deposition before Court. He also referred the circumstances of the case and submitted that even this accused remained in custody throughout the trial as victim has supported the case of prosecution.

4. Heard learned counsels for the parties and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the record.

5. On basis of missing report No.04/2021, an FIR No.161/2021 was registered at P.S. Mandrayal, District Karauli under Section 363 on 21.12.2021. The victim was recovered on 22.12.2021 and after recovery, she was medically examined and report Ex.P-3 and P-4 were prepared. The statement of victim under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. were also recorded during investigation. Police has filed a charge-sheet against Deepak and Veerpal. After framing the charge, the prosecution has examined 17 witnesses and exhibited 27 documents. The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and two witnesses were examined in defence and 11 documents were exhibited from Ex.D1 to Ex.D10. The Trial Court has convicted Veerpal under Sections 363 and 366A IPC, whereas Deepak @ Deepu was convicted under Sections 363, 366, 376 (2N) and 5(L)/6 POCSO Act. [2025:RJ-JP:16490] (4 of 5) [SOSA-281/2024]

6. The Trial Court after considering the medical evidence (ossification test) has concluded that the age of victim is between 16 to 18 years, but she has not attended the age of 18 years. The medical evidence on record clearly indicates that in absence of fusion at age on 18, the victim was found is less than 18 years. In any case, the age of victim as per PW-7 (Dr. Shishupal Meena) is 16 to 18 years and the Trial Court has determined the age on basis of the evidence.

7. Victim was examined as PW-2 and in her statement, she has made initially allegation upon Veerpal and thereafter upon present applicant, who met her at Rajkot. Afterwards, present applicant took her to Indore. We have gone through the statement of PW-2 and also considered her cross-examination. We have also gone through the statement of father of victim recorded as PW-3 and mother of victim recorded as PW-1. We have also considered other evidence on record.

8. Herein this case, main allegation is upon present applicant and the Trial Court after considering the evidence including victim has found that initially she was in company of Veerpal, later remained in company of present applicant. In defence, some photograph, were also exhibited as Ex.D2 to D10. The Trial Court has also considered FSL report (Ex.P28 and P-29), though serious doubts were raised by learned counsel for applicant about delay in forwarding sample to FSL, but at this stage it is not possible for us to express any opinion on the merits of the case.

9. Having considered the fact that victim was minor on date of incident and evidence of victim is corroborated with FSL report. The applicant remained in custody throughout the trial and til date [2025:RJ-JP:16490] (5 of 5) [SOSA-281/2024] the period of custody is 3 years, 6 months and 21 days, therefore, looking to material on record, I am of considered view that this is not a fit case, wherein indulgence of bail can be granted.

10. In view of aforesaid, the instant SOS application is preferred by applicant-accused-Deepak @ Deepu S/o Jagnu is hereby dismissed.

11. List S.B. Criminal Appeal No.3166/2023 with S.B. Criminal Appeal No.3004/2023 in the month of September, 2025. GAURAV /11 (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J