Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1206 (MP)

Ravi Jatav v. State of M. P.

2014-09-24

M.K.MUDGAL

body2014
JUDGMENT M.K. Mudgal, J. 1. Case diary is available. After investigation, charge sheet has already been filed on 28.8.2014. 2. The applicant has filed this first application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail in connection with Crime No. 230 of 2014 registered at PS Banmore District Morena for the offences punishable under Section 376 of IPC and Section 4 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Harassment Act, 2012. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as It was a case of consent. As per the story put forth by the prosecution, it was not possible for the applicant-accused to take the prosecutrix forcibly from her home with him. Further, as per medical certificate, age of the prosecutrix has been determined to be 19 years. The date of alleged incident is 22nd July, 2014 whereas, the report was lodged after 8 days i.e. 30.7.2014. The counsel further pleads that when the prosecutrix was seen by her maternal uncle at the residence of the applicant-accused, she did not state anything about rape to him. On the basis of the aforesaid circumstances, learned counsel for the applicant has prayed for grant of bail. 4. Learned PP opposing the submissions has submitted that as per school certificate issued by the Head Master of Primary School, the date of birth of the prosecutrix is 10.10.1999. On the basis of which, she was below 15 years at the time of the alleged incident, owing to which, consent of the prosecutrix is totally immaterial. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel has prayed for rejection of the bail application. 5. On perusal of the case diary, it is evident that as per mark sheet of the Primary School, date of birth of the prosecutrix is 10.10.1999, according to which, she was below 15 years. As per judgment in the case of Ranjeet Goswami Vs. State of Jharkhand, 2014 Volume 1 SCC 588, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under : ''The certificate reveals the date of birth of the accused as 10.5.1991. The school leaving certificate was proved by examining the Headmistress of the school. She has recognized the signatures of the Principal who issued the school leaving certificate. The evidence adduced by the Headmistress was not challenged. Consequently, there is no reason to discard that document.'' 6. The school leaving certificate was proved by examining the Headmistress of the school. She has recognized the signatures of the Principal who issued the school leaving certificate. The evidence adduced by the Headmistress was not challenged. Consequently, there is no reason to discard that document.'' 6. Considering the judgment cited above, age of the prosecutrix mentioned in the school certificate would prevail over the medical certificate issued by a doctor regarding the age. As per the school certificate, the age of the prosecutrix was below 15 years. Hence, the story put forth by learned counsel for the applicant regarding consent is totally immaterial. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances of the case, this court does not deem it fit to grant bail to the applicant-accused. Therefore, this application is dismissed.