The submission of the learned counsel for the applicant is that he has been falsely implicated in the present crime. It is submitted that he is not named in the FIR or in the statement of the prosecuturix under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded on 4.8.2018, but his name has figured in the additional statement recorded by the Investigating Officer on 5.08.2018, where it is said that while going along with the Investigating Officer, she recognized the applicant as one of the assailants, as he was sitting outside his home, along with another co-accused. It is pointed out that later on, on 6.08.2018 the prosecutrix in her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. has given the complete names of those who allegedly ravished her, but there the name of the applicant does not figure. It is said that the introduction of the applicant's name in the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 161 Cr.P.C. appears to be the handy work of the police. Learned counsel for the applicant has further pointed out that he is a Government employee working with the Irrigation Department aged about 55 years, who has no criminal history. There is neither any evidence or circumstances indicating his involvement in the present case. It is also pointed out that going by the medico legal estimation of the prosecutrix's age, she has been opined to be 17 years which giving the usual allowance of two years, or even one, would reckon her to be a major. He submits that the provisions of POCSO Act would not be attracted. It is in the last submitted that a perusal of the medico legal report shows that the prosecutrix has not sustained any injury, which is completely incompatible with a case of rape.
