Allahabad High Court: In a bail plea filed by the accused seeking to be released, for offenses alleged under Sections 363, 366, 376(3) of the Penal Code, 1860, (‘IPC’) and Sections 5(j)(2)/6 of the Protection of Children against Sexual Offences Act, 2012, (‘POCSO’), Rajeev Singh, J., while granting the accused bail subject to certain conditions, observed that the quality of investigation and supervision in the present case was poor, and directed the DGP to file affidavit of accountability of Investigating Officer, Supervising Officer, Monitoring Officer and other higher officials.
Background
It is the case of the accused that he has been falsely implicated for offences Sections 363, 366, 376(3) of the IPC and Section 5(j)(2)/6 of the POCSO in the present case and has been in jail since 05-09-2023.
It has been contended by the accused that as per the case of the prosecution, the FIR had been lodged by the brother of the victim based on the allegation that the victim had gone missing on 21-04-2023 and when she was not found even after searching, a missing person’s report was filed by him under Section 363 of the IPC. It was further submitted that after some time, the victim herself showed up at the police station and moved an application based on the averment that she was 20 years old and she had left home and gone to her aunt in Kanpur, upon being scolded by her mother. Thereafter, her statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’) was recorded by a lady constable, wherein she reiterated the same details as in her application.
It was only after an ossification test by the doctor on the victim that it was found she was about 15 years of age i.e., a minor. Furthermore, during her medicolegal test, it was found that her hymen was torn and healed, but there were no internal injuries. It was further submitted by the accused that during the ultrasound of the victim, it was found that she was 9 weeks pregnant.
The accused contended that the chargesheet had been filed, however, the trial had not commenced, therefore he should be granted bail in the given circumstances.
The State on the other hand argued that the accused had allegedly confessed to having been physically intimate with the victim, which was also corroborated by the parents of the victim, therefore, the charge-sheet had been submitted.
Decision and Analysis
Upon hearing submissions made by both parties and examining the evidence on record, as well as the statement of the victim under Sections 161 and 164 of the CrPC, the Court noted that the victim had not supported the prosecution in her deposition. The Court, therefore, granted bail to accused, subject to certain conditions.
The Court further observed that the quality of investigation and supervision in the present case was of ‘poor quality’, as even though the victim, who was minor, had been found to be pregnant for nine weeks, yet neither the investigating officer nor the supervising officer had asked the victim any specific question regarding her pregnancy, and thus, it directed the DGP, Lucknow, UP, to file affidavit of accountability of Investigating Officer, Supervising Officer, Monitoring Officer and other higher officials.
The matter has been listed on 29-7-2024 for further order.
[Ramchandra Yadav v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine All 3071, order dated 20-06-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Advocate for the accused: Smriti, Advocate
Advocate for the State: G.A.
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
