Allahabad High Court
Ranjeet Yadav Singh vs State Of U.P. on 22 January, 2010
Author: Raj Mani Chauhan
Bench: Raj Mani Chauhan
Reserved
Criminal Appeal No.2370 of 2009
Ranjeet Yadav Singh ....................Appellant.
Vs.
Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi. ...............Opposite Party.
Hon'ble Raj Mani Chauhan, J.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Bireshwar Nath, the learned counsel for the Central Bureau of Investigation on the prayer of bail during the pendency of appeal and perused the judgment and order dated 17.9.2009 passed by the trial court.
Accused Kaushal Kumar Chaurasiya, Ashish Pathak and Ranjeet Yadav Singh (present appellant) were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, E.C. Act, Lucknow in Sessions Trial No.721 of 2007 (Case Crime No.9(S) of 2002, State Versus Kaushal Kumar Chaurasiya and two others, under Section 376 and 120-B read with 376 I.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has held all the three accused guilty under Section 376(2)(g) of the I.P.C. Accused Kaushal Kumar Chaurasiya and Ashish Pathak at the final stage of the trial before passing the sentence moved application claiming themselves to be juvenile, therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge heard the accused Ranjeet Yadav Singh only on the point of sentence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment and order dated 17.9.2009 convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- under Section 376(2)(g) I.P.C. He has further directed that in case the accused-appellant fails to pay the amount of fine he will further undergo additional simple imprisonment of one year. Accused Ranjeet Yadav Singh has filed the present appeal against the impugned judgment and order dated 17.9.2009 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.
The prosecution case as disclosed at the trial in brief is that the prosecutrix Gauri Devi P.W.3 was the daughter of the complainant Shyam Narayan P.W.1, who was living in house No. E.C. 147, A.D.A. Colony, Naini, Allahabad. On the relevant date i.e. on 16.04.2002 she was student of B.A. Part-I in Ewing Christian College, Allahabad. Accused Kaushal Kumar Chaurasiya and Ashish Pathak were also the students of the same College. The prosecutrix on the evening of 15.04.2002 at about 5.00 am had gone to meet her friend Vibha who was also the student of the same College and was residing in the same colony. She on the next day i.e. on 16.04.2002 had gone to her College to collect her duplicate admit card as the college examinations were going on. When she reached at the college gate accused Ashish Pathak, Kaushal Kumar Chaurasiya and Ranjeet Yadav Singh met her there at the college gate. They caught hold her forcibly and got her seated in a Maruti Van. They on the pistol point took her to unknown place. They confined her in a room, which was unknown to her. All the accused on the night of 16.04.2002 had committed rape on her. The father of the accused and their relations reach there on 17.04.2002. On 18.04.2002 father of Kaushal Kumar Chaurasiya and Ashish Pathak came there with 2-3 lawyers and they forced her to sign on some blank stamp papers and took her photographs too along with Kaushal Kumar Chaurasiya. They wanted to show that she had married with Kaushal Kumar Chaurasiya. On the same day her mother reached there along with one person named Shanu. They took her to police station Mutthiganj and narrated the entire episode to the Station Officer.
The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecutrix was major girl. She voluntarily had gone with accused Kaushal Kumar Chaurasiya out of her own sweet will. This fact has been fully established by the document filed by the accused. She entered into marriage with Kaushal Kumar Chaurasiya. The prosecutrix was not subjected to rape and thereafter she was won over by her mother and she changed her version. She thereafter falsely levelled charge of rape against all the three accused. The learned counsel further argued that the prosecution story as put forward by the prosecution is most unnatural and there are a material contradictions in the statements of the complainant and the prosecutrix, which were over looked by the trial court. The medical examination report of the prosecutrix too does not support the fact that she was subjected to rape. The learned Additional Sessions Judge without proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record has wrongly held the accused guilty under Section 376 (2) (g) of the I.P.C. The accused- appellant was on bail during trial and he did not misuse the liberty of bail. Therefore, accused-appellant deserves to be released on bail during the pendency of the appeal.
Learned counsel for Central Bureau of Investigation opposed the prayer for bail and argued that the prosecutrix has stated that all the three accused has committed gang rape on her. Her statement alone is sufficient to hold the accused guilty. The learned trial court on proper appraisal of oral and documentary evidence on record has held the accused guilty under Section 376 (2)(g) of the I.P.C, therefore, the impugned judgment and order does not call for any interference. Keeping in view the nature of offence the accused-appellant does not deserve to be released on bail.
Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the Central Bureau Investigation. Considering the evidence available on trial courts record and keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as nature of offence, I do not find it a fit case for bail.
The prayer for bail is, therefore, refused.
January 22, 2010 Prajapati/-