MUKESH DANGOLIA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
Click here to view full judgement.
Sujoy Paul,J. -
(1.) This is second application for grant of bail filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C in connection with offences punishable under section 376,450,456,506 of IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act arising out of Crime No.71/2020 registered at P.s. Rehti District Sehore. The previous application M.Cr.C.No.13601/2020 was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh after filing of D.N.A report or recording of statement of the prosecutrix.
(2.) Shri Agrawal submits that applicant has been falsely implicated. The alleged incident of rape had taken-place in the intervening night of 25 th - 26 th February, 2020. The F.I.R was belatedly registered on 27.02.2020. Applicant's D.N.A report filed with the challan papers does not suggest anything against the applicant. Same is the case with medical report. As per statement of victim, at the time of incident, her brother Suraj (12 years) and Chandni were also present at the place. This story appears to be incorrect and an example of false prosecution. Challan has been filed. The applicant may be enlarged on bail.
(3.) Prayer is opposed by learned panel lawyer. He submits that the D.N.A was conducted after four days from the date of incident whereas medical examination was conducted almost after 36 hours from the date of incident. In view of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Sanjay Kumar @ Sunny , 2017 2 SCC 51 on the basis of evidence of victim alone, conviction can be recorded. It is not necessary as a rule of thumb that her statement be corroborated by medical evidence or D.N.A. This aspect is requireed to be gone into by the trial court. The F.I.R shows that applicant shut the mouth of victim and threatened her of dire consequences. In this backdrop, it will not be safe to enlarge the applicant on bail.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.