Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that prosecutrix is young girl aged about 12 years, as per medical opinion. There is no document on record in consonance with the provisons of Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (care and protection) Act, as such, the age of birth of the prosecutrix has to be determined as per medical opinion. Attention of the Court was then invited to the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C., before the Doctor, under section 164 Cr.P.C. With reference to above, the learned A.G.A. submits that prosecutrix in all her statements referred to above, has remained clear, categorical and consistent. She has implicated applicant for having dislodging her modesty ruthlessly and forcibly. The occurrence is said to have been witnessed by the grandfather of the prosecutrix. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment of Supreme Court in Phool Singh Vs. State of M.P. (2022) 2 SCC 74 and on basis thereof learned A.G.A. submits that prosecution of an accused for an offence of rape and sexual assault can be maintained even in the absence of medical evidence and on the solitary statement of the prosecutrix. However, in such a circumstance the statements of prosecutrix must be clear, categorical and When the aforesaid test is applied to the present case and the aforemeitoned statements of the prosecutrix are taken as as a whole it cannot be said that the same are inconsistent and contradictory. They fall in the category of impeccable evidence. On the aforesaid premise, learned A.G.A. contends that applicant does not deserve any sympathy of this Court. As such, the bail application is liable to be rejected.
