Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 795 (KAR)

Imamhussain alias Babu v. State

2015-07-22

K.N.PHANEENDRA

body2015
ORDER : The petitioner is the sole accused in Spl. Case No. 3/2015 on the file of the II Addl. Sessions Judge, Vijaypur, against whom the charge-sheet has been laid for the offences u/Ss. 363, 366(A), 344, 376(2)(I)(N), I.P.C., 5 and 6 of POCSO Act, 2012 and 3(1)(xi)(2) SC/ST (PA) Act, 1989. 2. The brief factual matrix as could be seen from the charge-sheet papers are that :— The accused-petitioner belonging to Muslim community has abducted the victim by name Huligemma D/o Deva Kamble of Naganoor village who belongs to Scheduled Caste, knowing fully well that she was a minor girl, aged 14 years by persuading her that he would show Gol Gumbaj in Vijaypur and also provide new clothes etc. by taking her on 22-11-2014, he committed sexual activity with her from 22-11-2014 up to 4-12-2014. On 5-12-2014 she was brought back to the village and thereafter it appears she gave a statement before the police and prior to that a missing complaint was also lodged by her father. Culminating the entire statements of the witnesses and also the doctor’s evidence and collecting the materials with regard to her age, the police have submitted the charge-sheet. 3. The statement of the victim Huligemma was recorded, wherein she has categorically stated about overt acts of the petitioner and about the sexual intercourse had with her by the petitioner on several times between 22-11-2014 to 5-12-2014. The victim was examined on 6-12-2014. The doctor has opined that there was an old tear of hymen and there are no injuries on any parts of the body and the doctor has opined that after receipt of FSL report that there was no any recent sexual intercourse and the clothes which were seized by the police also does not contain any seminal stain and spermatozoa. Therefore on the basis of the medical report and as the petitioner has been in judicial custody from eight months, the learned counsel for the petitioner request the Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 4. There is material to show that the hymen was absent and further added to that the victim girl has categorically stated about the incident and also overt acts of the petitioner. At this stage, there is no reason as to how the statement of the victim girl has to be disbelieved when the provisions of POCSO Act are invoked. 4. There is material to show that the hymen was absent and further added to that the victim girl has categorically stated about the incident and also overt acts of the petitioner. At this stage, there is no reason as to how the statement of the victim girl has to be disbelieved when the provisions of POCSO Act are invoked. Under S. 29 of the POCSO Act, the Court has to presume that such person has committed, abetted or attempted to commit the offence as the case may be unless the contrary is proved when a person is prosecuted for committing, abetting or attempting to commit any offence under the said provisions. Therefore, in view of the statement of the victim girl and also S. 29 of POCSO Act, I am of the opinion, considering the age of the victim girl, below the age of 14 years, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has not made out any grounds for grant of bail. Hence the petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, petition is dismissed. The learned Special Judge is directed to take up this matter on priority and dispose off the same as early as possible. Petition dismissed.