Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur on Thursday denied bail to a man accused of raping a deaf and mute minor girl ruling that despite the DNA evidence not implicating the accused, the testimony of the prosecutrix holds significant weight and that the non-presence of the accused's DNA alone does not invalidate the prosecutrix's evidence.

The court, presided over by Justice GS Ahluwalia, noting the absence of DNA in the vaginal slide of the survivor, emphasised that “it is well established principle of law that even if DNA test report is in favour of accused, still the evidence of the prosecutrix cannot be disbelieved only on the said ground.” 

Notably, the present bail application, filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) was the third attempt made by the accused for bail. However, the third bail application was also dismissed following previous rejections, the first on merits and the second due to lack of prosecution.

The accused had been in jail since July 6, 2020, in connection with charges including offences under Sections 363, 376, 376(A)(B) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 3, 4, 5(m), and 6 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The case involves the alleged abduction and sexual assault of an eight-year-old girl, who is deaf and mute.

The counsel for the accused/ applicant, Advocate Abhishek Pandey, argued that the DNA test report did not find the DNA profile of the applicant or the co-accused on the evidence collected. Additionally, it was highlighted that the accused has been incarcerated for nearly four years without the trial reaching a conclusion. Order sheets from the trial court dating from October 2023 were presented, showing repeated failures to issue summons to key witnesses, resulting in continuous adjournments.

On the other hand, the State's counsel, Panel Lawyer K.S. Baghel, contended that the examination of the Investigating Officer is scheduled for June 19, 2024, and assured that the officer would appear in court. The State also undertook to ensure the presence of all witnesses without further delay.

The court expressed concern over the repeated failures to issue summons despite judicial orders, directing the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Anuppur, to investigate the matter and identify those responsible for the non-compliance. The court issued a direction stating “Accordingly, it is directed that Trial Court shall not fix the case beyond the period of seven days on every occasion…Trial Court shall ensure that notices are issued on the very same day on which the order for issuance of notices is issued.”

“Any deviation from the aforesaid direction shall be viewed with all seriousness,” the court further said while tasking the Superintendent of Police, Anuppur, with ensuring the execution of all summons and warrants.

The court held “In view of the evidence which has already come on record and the immediate conduct of applicant in making an attempt to hide himself, no case is made out for taking a different view in the matter.”

In conclusion, the bail application was dismissed with the court finding no grounds to alter its prior decision.

 

Cause Title: Bheem Kol v State of Madhya Pradesh [MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 19843 of 2024]