news details |
|
|
| Court rejects bail to kidnapper, rapist of minor | | |
Early Times Report
Jammu, Apr 28: Special Mobile Magistrate Electricity R N Wattal rejected the bail application of one Dheeraj Kumar resident of Kathua involved in kidnapping of minor girl and committing rape upon her.
According to the police report that father of the prosecutrix on April 14, 2010 moved an application before police Station Domana regarding kidnapping of his minor daughter of 17 years of age. Again on April 20, 2010 the complainant lodged a written complaint in continuation of the previous missing report of his daughter. As per the complainant's personal verification, it is learnt one Dheeraj Kumar r/o Kathua has kidnapped complainant's daughter on April 13, 2010 at Muthi Jammu when she was on her way to purchase some books. The kidnapper took the minor girls towards Kathua. On this report police registered a case u/s 363 RPC and hunt was made to trace the kidnapped girl and after recovery prosecutrix her statement u/s 164-A CrPC has been recorded in which she narrated whole the story of kidnapping and said that committed rape upon her three to four times.
Special Mobile Magistrate Electricity RN Wattal after hearing PO RP Singh for the state and Adv RL Revo appeared for the alleged accused observed that the prosecutrix is a minor girl of 17 yrs of age. In her statement-recorded u/s 164-A of CrPC she has given the events of her kidnapping and horrifying sexual assault on her by accused. A girl in a tradition bound non-permissive society would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is to reflect her chasty had occurred being conscious of danger of being ostracized by the society or being looked down by the society. In the normal course of human conduct an unmarried minor girl would not like to give publicity to the traumatic experience, she had gone and would feel terribly embraced in relation to the incident of rape. Court said that why should the statement of a prosecutrix herein who complains of rape or sexual assault be viewed with doubt, disbelief or suspicion? It would be wrong approach and would amount-adding insult to injury, if we conclude that prosecutrix was consenting partly to the sexual assault on her by accused. Prosecutrix being minor and as such the consent is absolutely irrelevant. With these observations Court dismissed the bail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
