In a significant decision highlighting the seriousness of crimes against minors, the Allahabad High Court has denied bail to Kuldeep, accused of raping a 12-year-old girl in Kanpur Nagar. Justice Krishan Pahal delivered the judgment, describing the crime as “one of the most diabolical and heinous” imaginable, reflecting a severe degree of moral and psychological depravity.
Background of the Case
The case, Case Crime No. 185 of 2020, was registered under Sections 376AB of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 5(i)/6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act at Kakwan Police Station, Kanpur Nagar. The prosecution alleged that on November 29, 2020, Kuldeep abducted the 12-year-old victim, took her to an agricultural field, and brutally raped her.
Kuldeep, who has been in jail since December 1, 2020, applied for bail, arguing that he was falsely implicated due to a financial dispute with the victim’s family. His lawyer, Arun Kumar Singh, contended that the victim’s statement was unreliable, suggesting that she had been coached by the police. Additionally, the defense raised questions about the victim’s age, claiming there was no conclusive medical examination to determine it.
Important Legal Issues Involved
The court’s decision hinged on several critical legal issues:
1. Reliability of the Victim’s Statement: The defense argued that the victim’s testimony was compromised, claiming she had been tutored by the police. However, the prosecution contended that the victim had clearly identified the accused and consistently maintained her account of the events, which the court found credible.
2. Determination of the Victim’s Age: The defense questioned the lack of conclusive medical evidence to ascertain the victim’s age, arguing that this cast doubt on the applicability of Section 376AB of the IPC (which pertains specifically to rapes committed against minors under 12). The court, however, accepted the initial medical report that placed the victim’s age at 12, deeming it sufficient for the purposes of the bail hearing.
3. Period of Incarceration: Kuldeep’s counsel argued that his prolonged detention (nearly four years in custody) without bail constituted a violation of his fundamental rights. The court considered this but held that the severity of the crime and the compelling evidence against the accused outweighed any such considerations.
4. Severity of the Crime and Nature of the Injuries: A key issue for the court was the extent of the victim’s injuries, which were described in graphic detail in the medical reports. These injuries, along with the evidence presented by the prosecution, led the court to conclude that the crime was of such a heinous nature that granting bail would be inappropriate.
5. Impact on Society and Justice System: The court also considered the broader implications of the case for societal order and the justice system, emphasizing the need to send a strong message that such acts of depravity would not be tolerated.
Court’s Observations and Decision
Justice Krishan Pahal, presiding over the case, made several strong observations regarding the crime’s nature and its impact. He stated:
“This offence stands as one of the most diabolical and heinous crimes imaginable, reflecting an alarming degree of moral and psychological depravity. Such acts are not only a violation of the individual but of the very essence of humanity.”
The court highlighted the disturbing details from the medical report, which included severe injuries requiring extensive surgical intervention:
“The medical injury report and the treatment history presented in the case is profoundly disturbing. Its contents would shake the conscience of any reasonable person, no matter how hardened.”
Justice Pahal emphasized that crimes of this nature severely disrupt societal order, stating:
“The innocence of a child has been shattered, and the effects of such a grievous act will resonate throughout the victim’s life. It is imperative that as a guardian of justice, a clear and unequivocal message has to be sent indicating that such depraved actions cannot be tolerated under any circumstances.”
Given these considerations, the court rejected the bail application:
“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, taking into consideration the age of the victim and the gravity of the injury sustained by her, this Court is not inclined to release the applicant on bail.”
Further Directions from the Court
While denying bail, the court directed the trial court to expedite the hearing of the case, in line with the Supreme Court’s judgments in Vinod Kumar vs. State of Punjab (2015) 3 SCC 220 and Hussain and Another vs. Union of India (2017) 5 SCC 702. Justice Pahal clarified that the observations made in his order were limited to the disposal of the bail application and would not influence the trial’s merits.
