Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramnaresh Kol vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 15 March, 2022
Author: Atul Sreedharan
Bench: Atul Sreedharan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ATUL SREEDHARAN
ON THE 15th OF MARCH, 2022
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 4959 of 2022
Between:-
RAMNARESH KOL S/O CHHOTELAL KOL , AGED
ABOUT 25 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR
VILLAGE BHADWA PS. TAALA DISTRICT SATNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI YADVENDRA DWIVEDI WITH SHRI AMIT GARG )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
POLICE STATION AMARPATAN DISTRICT SATNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. VICTIM 'A' D/O NOT MENTION OCCUPATION:
NILL NOT MENTION (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI NARENDRA CHOURASIYA, PANEL WITH AND SHRI
ANURAG KUMAR SAXENA, OBJECTOR )
T h is appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed for grant of bail to applicant Ramnaresh Kol in connection with Crime No.254/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 363,376 IPC and 3,4 of the POCSO Act, registered at Police Station Amarpatan, District Satna.
This is the fourth application for grant of bail. The first application was withdrawn vide order dated 17.11.2017. The second application was dismissed for non-prosecution on 15.11.2019 and the third application was dismissed for non-prosecution 14.11.2020.
The applicant is in judicial custody since 29.6.2017. The allegation against the applicant is that he eloped with the prosecutrix and committed rape with her. The prosecutrix has been examined as P.W.1. She says that she has studied only Signature Not Verified SAN till class-8th and that she was taken away from her home in Madhya Pradesh after Digitally signed by SHYAMLEE SINGH SOLANKI Date: 2022.03.16 18:05:56 IST sedating her and when she woke up she found herself in Surat. In Surat, the 2 applicant is stated to have told the prosecutrix that he would marry her. They stayed together in a rented premise where the applicant used to perform manual labour. From there they went to Mumbai where in a temple she says they got married. They worked their also for some time and thereafter they returned to the village of the applicant from where she was recovered by her parents and the police.
Her testimony before the trial court prima facie reflects consent and makes it appear that this perhaps may be a case of statutory rape. However, while prima facie appreciating the statement of P.W.2, who is the father of the prosecutrix, it appears that as far as the age of the prosecutrix is concerned, there is much confusion therein on account of the statement of the P.W.2, who is the father. Apparently, he is illiterate as he has not signed the testimony and has only put his thumb impression. He says that it is correct to suggest that the prosecutrix would have been admitted to Class-I, when she was around 8 years old. He further says that he had got married about 35 years ago and one year after his marriage his elder son was born and one year thereafter the prosecutrix was born. If that be right, then the prosecutrix's age must be around 33 years, which seems highly improbable.
P.W.3 is the mother of the prosecutrix, who in her examination-in-chief itself says categorically that on the date of the incident her daughter's age was about 18 to 19 years and that she has studied upto class-8th after which she left schooling. As she has given her Court statement after nearly one and a half years after the incident, on the date on which the statement of the mother of the prosecutrix was recorded before the trial court the prosecutrix must have about 20 to 21 years of age. However, in her cross-examination she says that her elder son is only 18 to 19 years of age and that she had got married about 30 years back and one year after her marriage her elder son was born and a year thereafter the prosecutrix is born, which would put her age around 28 years. She further states that it is correct to suggest that the prosecutrix date of birth given in the school at Signature Not Verified the time of her admission was on the basis of estimation and not on the basis of a SAN Digitally signed by SHYAMLEE SINGH certificate given either by the hospital authorities. It appears that this witness also SOLANKI Date: 2022.03.16 18:05:56 IST is completely illiterate as she has not signed the testimony and she has only placed 3 her thumb impression.
Thus, it appears prima facie that consent was there and as regards the age there is much confusion with both the parents having given an approximate age which places the prosecutrix much above the age of majority. However, the observation of the trial Court with regard to the witnesse's apparent age (is 14 years). Therefore, it may be so that the prosecutrix may be a major at the time of the incident itself. However, that question is to be arrived specifically by the learned Trial Court in the course of the trial.
Therefore, on account of what has been argued and considered hereinabove, the application is allowed. It is directed that the applicant herein shall be enlarged on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial court.
The jail authorities shall have the applicant checked by the jail doctor to ensure that he is not suffering from the Novel Corona Virus (COVID-19) disease and if he is, he shall be sent to the nearest hospital designated by the State for treatment. If not, he shall be transported to his place of residence by the jail authorities.
Certified copy as per rules.
(ATUL SREEDHARAN) JUDGE ss Signature Not Verified SAN Digitally signed by SHYAMLEE SINGH SOLANKI Date: 2022.03.16 18:05:56 IST