Mother's Name Mentioned Incorrectly In Marksheet, Age Of Prosecutrix Doubtful: MP High Court Grants Bail In POCSO Case

The Bench comprising Justice Pranay Verma further noted that the Prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 CrPC had categorically stated that she had willingly went away with the Applicant/accused-

The prosecutrix is alleged to be a minor and her parents at the time of lodging of the FIR and in 164 Cr.P.C. statements have stated that the age of the prosecutrix is 17 years on the basis of her marksheet. Though in the scholar register her date of birth has been mentioned as 15.04.2008 but the name of the mother of the prosecutrix has been incorrectly recorded therein. The same thus makes it doubtful. In her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. the prosecutrix stated to have on her own gone along with the applicant to different places and eventually to Delhi and having married him and having lived with him as his wife and having developed physical relationship with him willingly. She did not state that the applicant exercised any force upon her for the same. The said statement has been corroborated in her statement before the Court in which she has affirmed her marriage with the applicant.

Facts of the case were that the Applicant was accused of offences punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376(2) (n) IPC & under Sections 3/4 POCSO Act. As per the prosecution story, the Applicant had kidnapped the Prosecutrix and committed rape upon her.

The Applicant argued before the Court that the age of the Prosecutrix was 17 years and that she went willingly away with him. It was submitted that later, they got married and thereafter, developed physical relationship with each other. It was also pointed out that the Prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 CrPC had clearly stated that she went away with the Applicant on her own will and later got married to him. She had further stated that the Applicant did not exercise any force upon her. Thus, it was prayed that he be extended the benefit of grant of bail.

Per contra, the State and the father of the Prosecutrix asserted that considering the allegations level against the Applicant, he was not entitled to be released on bail.

Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court found force in the submissions put forth by the Applicant. It opined that the age of the Prosecutrix was doubtful based on the incorrect name of the mother mentioned in her marksheet. The Court also noted that in her statement under Section 164 CrPC, she had specifically mentioned that she was not coerced by the Applicant in doing anything and that she willingly went away with the him and later got married.

With the aforesaid observations, coupled with the facts that the investigation in the case had been completed and charge-sheet had also been filed, the Court found it fit to grant the benefit of bail to the Applicant. Accordingly, the application was allowed.