Manish Thakur vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

 Anoop Chitkara, J

An young man aged 25 years, who is under arrest for committing forcible sexual intercourse with an old lady aged 75 years belonging to Scheduled

Caste, has come up before this Court under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), seeking regular bail.

Based on a complaint of the daughter-in-law of the victim, the police registered FIR No.50 of 2020, dated 01.07.2020, registered under Section 452,

354, 342, 376 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, (IPC), and Section 3(2)(V) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in

Police Station, Sangrah, District Sirmaur, Himachal Pradesh, disclosing cognizable and non-bailable offences.

Briefly, the allegations against the petitioner are that during the night complainant was in her room. She heard the cries of her mother-in-law. On

this she awakened her husband and when they tried to come out from their room, they found the room bolted from outside. After that her husband

called his neighbour, who came and opened the door. On reaching the room of the mother-in-law, she told that son of Dharam Pal has committed bad

act with her.

After that the police got recorded the statement of the victim before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Rajgarh, Sirmaur, wherein she alleged

forcible sexual intercourse. The Police had also taken the victim for medical examination, where the doctor did not notice any injury on her body and

collected swabs from her private parts, which were sent to the Laboratory. As per the report of the Laboratory, no semen was detected. As such, no

DNA could be conducted.

I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the status report.

The first contention of Mr. Kishore Pundir, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the FIR was registered by the daughter-in-law, who had only

seen one person running from the window and she could not identify him. He further stated that given this fact, the petitioner is not connected with the

occurrence. The answer to this contention lies in the statement of the victim wherein she specifically named him as an accused. Furthermore,

daughter-in-law of the victim also mentioned that on inquiry from the victim, she had told her that son of Dharam Pal had committed wrong act with

her. A perusal of the memo of parties reveals that Manish Thakur is son of Dharam Pal. Thus there is no merit in this submission.

Second contention of the learned counsel is that the absence of injuries and non-detection of semen by the laboratory. The answer to these

contentions is also apparent in the definition of Section 375 IPC, where it is the penetration, which is an offence and not the ejaculation. Even

otherwise, these contentions would be decided more appropriately after recording of such evidence in trial and not at this stage.

Third contention is that the accused had removed the fuse of the electricity supply of the house to disconnect the electricity supply and also bolted

the door from outside. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is improvement. Law is well settled that FIR need not be an encyclopedia.

Despite that the fact of bolting of door of the complainant from outside, is mentioned in it. The fact of bolting of door was to restrain them from

coming out. Even if the fact of removal of fuse, might have come in investigation, but that is subject to explanation in the trial.

Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case, nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.

Given above, there is no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.