Submitting affidavits for the victim and the complainant, Advocate Archana Howal stated that the victim shared "a consensual relationship" with the applicant, and the FIR was filed only due to "misunderstanding". (file)The Bombay High Court has recently granted bail to a man convicted in 2022, and sentenced with a 20-year imprisonment for raping a minor, holding that some reasonable doubt was created about the actual birthdate of the victim, which was a “crucial factor” in the case.
The bench said the applicant has a young daughter of two years, and the victim and her sister — an informant in the case — have not supported the prosecution’s case. As his appeal was admitted, with reasonable doubt of his acquittal, he was entitled to be released on a bail.
A single-judge bench of Justice Sarang V Kotwal was hearing the bail plea by the applicant, who was convicted by a special court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, in Pune in April 2022 for the commission of offence of rape under Section 376(2)(n) (repeatedly raping the same woman) of the Indian Penal Code and relevant provisions of the POCSO Act, and was sent to a 20-year imprisonment.
According to the prosecution, the victim — born on December 24, 2004 — who was a minor at the time of the incident in April 2020, got pregnant and later delivered the child. The victim’s sister alleged in an FIR that the applicant was “responsible for the pregnancy”. The prosecution argued that the applicant had a physical relationship with the victim when she was under 16 years, and therefore, an investigation was carried out and the man was arrested on July 14, 2020.
Submitting affidavits for the victim and the complainant, Advocate Archana Howal stated that the victim shared “a consensual relationship” with the applicant, and the FIR was filed only due to “misunderstanding”. According to the victim, her actual date of birth was December 24, 2000, and not 2004 as per the prosecution’s case, and that the applicant be granted a bail, otherwise she and her child would “suffer great prejudice and difficulty”.
“The complainant said that the victim was born in 2000, and she got married with the applicant in September 2019.” Advocate Anjali Patil from the applicant’s side submitted that “reasonable doubt” was created about the victim’s birth date, and there was “no reason to disbelieve her deposition of her birth year being 2000”.
The complainant deposed during cross-examination that the birth certificate and Aadhaar card of the woman were prepared on the basis of information given by her father, who had died in 2011, and that they themselves were not aware how to correct the record. She further deposed that she had signed the FIR out of fear amidst pressure from social workers and police. The victim had also deposed that she was born at her mother’s native place and was not aware as to why her father had mentioned her birth year as 2004. She also said that she did not feel it necessary to get her date of birth corrected till the lodging of the rape case. According to the victim, she wanted to reside with the applicant after their marriage and he and his relatives had taken good care of her and her child, and that she had absolutely no complaints against the applicant.
“Considering all these aspects, some reasonable doubt is created about the actual date of birth of the victim, which is a crucial factor in this case. The applicant is sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 20 years… The victim and her sister — who was the first informant — have not supported the prosecution case, and the appeal has already been admitted, and there is a reasonable possibility of his acquittal,” the judge observed.
After police submitted that they did not have “serious objection for showing leniency in the matter”, the bench observed,