news details |
|
|
| Court denies bail in kidnapping, rape of minor | | | JAMMU, Apr 26 (JNF) : Principal Sessions Judge Kathua Vinod Chatterji Koul today rejected the bail application of one Yog Raj, a resident of Athialtta of Tehsil Kasohli in District Kathua who was facing trial in kidnapping and rape with a minor. According to police case, charges against accused are that on March 2, 2013, he kidnapped the minor prosecutrix and took her from place to place and raped her during that period. As per the police report, on May 5, 2013, father of the prosecutrix made a report with police station Billawar that on May 2, 2013 his daughter (prosecutrix) went missing at 5 a.m.
He made an inquiry about her but she could not be traced. After the missing report was lodged, he came to know during search that the minor daughter has been kidnapped by Yog Raj, who has taken her to some unknown place. This report was made by him to the police on 16th of May 2013.
On this report FIR No. 55/2013 for offence u/s 363 RPC. During the course of investigation, accused was apprehended; prosecutrix was recovered from his possession. The police recorded the statement of the prosecutrix and the witness and on conclusion of the investigation IO found the offences punishable under section 363/376 RPC established against the accused. After hearing Advocate C.L.Rasotra for the accused and Public Prosecutor Ravi Gupta for the state, Principal Sessions Judge Kathua Vinod Koul observed that it must be kept in mind that rape is social offence and a rapist cannot claim bail for the reason that his liberty cannot be curtailed. Any statement of rape is an extremely humiliating experience for a woman and until she is a victim of sex crime, she would not blame anyone but the real culprit. Court further observed that while appreciating the evidence of the prosecutrix, the Courts must always keep in mind that no self-respecting woman would put her honour at stake by falsely alleging commission of rape on her and, therefore, ordinarily a look for corroboration of her testimony is unnecessary and uncalled for.
But for high improbability in the prosecution case, the conviction in the case of sex crime may be based on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the circumstances referred to and pointed out by the counsel are neither sufficient nor do they justify discarding the evidence of the prosecutrix. With these observations Court rejected the bail application of Yog Raj. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
