The Allahabad High Court dismissed a bail plea of a man accused of committing rape upon a 11-year-old girl and observed that in our country, a minor girl, a victim of sexual aggression, would rather suffer silently than falsely implicate somebody.

The High Court was considering a bail application of an accused involved in a criminal case registered under Sections 65(2), 351(2), 332(c) of B.N.S. and Sections 3 and 4 POCSO Act.

The Single Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh asserted, “The Court must keep in mind while appreciating the evidence of the prosecutrix the values prevailing in the country, particularly in rural India. It would be unusual for girl to come up with a false story of being a victim of sexual assault so as to implicate an innocent person. In our country, a minor girl, victim of sexual aggression, would rather suffer silently than to falsely implicate somebody. Any statement of a rape victim is an extremely humiliating experience for her and until she is a victim of sex crime, she would not blame anyone but the real culprit.”

Advocate Akhilesh Kumar Dwivedi appeared for the Applicant while Government Advocate Shyam Chandra appeared for the Respondent.

Factual Background

The informant, who is father of the victim, got a first information report lodged with regard to an incident which took place on the same day for the alleged offence under Sections 65(2), 351(2) B.N.S. and Sections 9/10 POCSO Act against the applicant. It was alleged that in the morning when he woke up, he did not find his daughter on the bed. However, he noticed that another room was locked from inside and when he peeped through the window, he saw that the applicant was committing rape upon his daughter by pressing her mouth. F.I.R. further alleged that when the informant shouted and called his wife, the applicant opened the door, and ran away by pushing him extending a threat of dire consequences. Thereafter, the informant took the assistance of women's helpline number 1090.

Reasoning

One of the contentions raised by the applicant was regarding the delay in lodging the first information report. The Bench referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh and Others (1996), wherein it has been observed that courts cannot overlook the fact that in sexual offences delay in the lodging of the FIR can be due to variety of reasons particularly the reluctance of the prosecutrix of her family members to go to the police and complain about the incident which concerns the reputation of the prosecutrix and the honour of her family.

Coming to the other contention that there are contradictions in the statement of the victim under Sections 180 and 183 of BNSS, therefore prosecution case is liable to be disbelieved, the Bench said, “...the same is misconceived inasmuch as the victim, in her statements under Section 180 and 183 of BNSS, has specifically stated that the applicant had committed misdeed with her and also threatened her father for dire consequence.”

From a perusal of statements of the victim under Section 180 and 183 BNSS, it was clear that the applicant had forcibly taken her to another room, bolted the room and committed misdeeds with her. The Bench was of the view that the meaning of what the victim said in her statements recorded under Section 180 and 183 BNSS is the same. Even the deposition of honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details because the power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals.

“In the instant case, the allegation against the applicant that he had committed misdeed with the victim comes under the stage beyond attempt to commit it, as such, applicant is guilty of the offence punishable under Section 63 BNS. Even if, for the sake of argument, it is assumed that there was no penetration, even then the applicant is liable to be punished under Section 65(2) BNS as the victim is aged below 12 years. The said act of the accused is covered by the definition of rape provided under Section 63 of BNS”, the Bench held.

Finding no material on record to presume the false implication of the applicant, the Bench rejected the bail application.

Cause Title: Suraj Kumar Alias Vishwapratap Singh v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:538)

Appearance:

Appellants: Advocate Akhilesh Kumar Dwivedi

Respondents: Advocates R. A. Ram, Government Advocate Shyam Chandra

Click here to read/download Order


Allahabad High CourtJustice Sanjay Kumar SinghProtection Of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) ActBNS

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.