Last Updated:
The accused, currently in judicial custody since September 6, 2024, had sought bail on grounds of alleged contradictions in the victim’s statements and absence of medical evidence confirming forceful sexual assault.
In its order, the high court stressed that victims, especially minors, are unlikely to falsely implicate someone in such grave allegations. (Representational Image: Shutterstock)
The Allahabad High Court recently rejected the bail plea of a law student accused of sexually assaulting an 11-year-old girl, emphasising the seriousness of the allegations and the necessity to handle cases of child abuse with utmost sensitivity.
The bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh dismissed the bail application of Suraj Kumar alias Vishwapratap Singh, who was booked under Sections 65(2) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Sections 3/4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The accused, currently in judicial custody since September 6, 2024, had sought bail on grounds of alleged contradictions in the victim’s statements and absence of medical evidence confirming forceful sexual assault.
On September 5, 2024, the father of the minor girl lodged an FIR stating that he caught the accused in a locked room in his house, assaulting his daughter. According to the prosecution, the father, upon searching for his daughter early in the morning, discovered her inside a room with the accused, who allegedly fled after being confronted. The victim later narrated the sequence of events to her family, prompting them to approach the authorities.
The accused’s counsel argued that the FIR was lodged with an unexplained delay of 17 hours, casting doubt on the veracity of the allegations. It was further contended that while the father claimed to have witnessed rape, the minor, in her recorded statements, only described molestation. The defence also asserted that the lack of penetration negated the charge of rape.
On the other hand, the prosecution strongly opposed the bail, highlighting that the victim was a minor and that her father was an eyewitness to the incident. The Additional Government Advocate relied upon the judgment of the apex court in the case of Attorney General for India vs. Satish and Another, (2021) to submit that to constitute an offence of rape, penetration of the penis is not required. The AGA also submitted that in view of Section 29 of the POCSO Act, the court shall presume that the accused has committed offence unless the contrary is proved by the offender.
Rejecting the accused’s contention of no penetration, the high court observed that under Section 63 of BNS, rape is not solely defined by penetration. It also referred to the Supreme Court judgment in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Mahendra alias Golu, (2022) which clarified that even an attempt to commit a crime is punishable. “Even if, for the sake of argument, it is assumed that there was no penetration, even then the applicant is liable to be punished under Section 65(2) BNS as the victim is aged below 12 years,” held the court.
Further, regarding the victim’s statement, the high court pointed out that the victim in her statements under Sections 180 and 183 of the BNSS, had clearly stated that the accused had forcibly taken her to another room, bolted the room, and committed misdeed with her.
“It is well known that every person has a different way of expressing their words and feelings in their local language. The disclosure made by the victim clearly denotes the sexual act in common parlance,” court held.
The court also dismissed the argument regarding medical evidece, noting that the final opinion on sexual violence was pending forensic analysis and could not be disregarded at the present stage.
In its order, the high court stressed that victims, especially minors, are unlikely to falsely implicate someone in such grave allegations.
“The Court must keep in mind while appreciating the evidence of the prosecutrix the values prevailing in the country, particularly in rural India. It would be unusual for girl to come up with a false story of being a victim of sexual assault so as to implicate an innocent person. In our country, a minor girl, victim of sexual aggression, would rather suffer silently than to falsely implicate somebody,” said the court.
It added that “any statement of a rape victim is an extremely humiliating experience for her and until she is a victim of sex crime, she would not blame anyone but the real culprit”.
Accordingly, court dismissed the bail application. However, it clarified that these observations were limited to the bail proceedings and would not influence the trial court’s final judgment.