Allahabad High Court
Raju Son Of Ramdas And Mukesh Son Of ... vs State Of U.P. on 10 March, 2006
Author: Ravindra Singh
Bench: Ravindra Singh
JUDGMENT Ravindra Singh, J.
1. This application is filed by the applicant Raju and Mukesh with a prayer that they may be released on bail in case crime No. 63931040084 of 2004 (S.T. No. 525 of 2004) under Sections 376, 366A, 342 and 506 I.P.C. P.S. Kotwali City district Etah.
2. According to the prosecution version the alleged occurrence has taken place on 11.3.2004 at about 8 p.m. Its F.I.R. was lodged on 13.3.2004 at 1.20 p.m. by one Murari Lal, father of the prosecutrix. The prosecution story in brief is that prosecutrix Km. Meena aged about 15 years had gone to lane from her house on 11.3.2004 at about 8 p.m. to attend the call of nature. Immediately thereafter she did not come back, search was made but she could not be traced out. On 13.3.2004 at about 6 p.m. the prosecutrix came back to her house in a frightened condition. She disclosed that as soon as she sat down for urinal purpose, she was over powered by the applicants and co-accused. The pistol and knife were kept on her breast and by pressing her mouth, she was taken by them, at that time they were saying in an abusive language that now she would not be escaped and they would enjoy to much, she was taken to the agricultural field where they committed rape repeatedly, she was threatened by them and she was asked that in case any complaint is made by her, she would be killed. Thereafter the first information report was lodged at 8.20 p.m. on 13.3.2004 by the first informant. The prosecutrix was medically examined on 13.3.2004. No injury was seen on her person. No definite opinion about rape could be given as the prosecutrix was used to sexual intercourse. According to the x-ray report she was found more than 16 years and less then 18 years of age, in vaginal smears no sperm was found.
3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicants that the prosecutrix was a major girl and the prosecution story was not corroborated by medical evidence because no injury was seen on her person and no opinion about rape could be given and no sperm was found in the vaginal smears. Therefore, the allegations of committing rape by three persons at several times was false and concocted.
4. It is further contended that a bail application on their behalf was moved before the learned Sessions Judge, Etah, who rejected the same on 18.5.2004 but subsequently the second bail application was moved before the learned Sessions Judge, Etah, the same was granted on technical ground by giving the benefit of the provisions of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.. That order was challenged by the first informant before this Court by moving a Criminal Misc. Bail Cancellation Application No. 15899 of 2004, which was allowed by this Court on 6.12.2005 and bail granted to the applicant was cancelled.
5. It is contended that the applicants remained on bail for a period of more than one year and they have not misused the same. It is further contended that the F.I.R. is delayed, it was lodged after great thought and consultation and the prosecutrix herself did not make any hue and cry when she was taken by the applicants and other co-accused and she did not make any protest, but after living in the company of the applicants for two days, she came back to her house and disclosed the facts of this case. The applicant are innocent persons. They have not committed any offence but they have been falsely implicated in this case due to ill will of the first informant. It is further contended that the statement of the prosecutrix Km. Meena was recorded in the trial court as P.W. 1. According to her cross examination, she did not disclose the father's name of the applicants and the applicants were not put up for identification by the I.O. because she was not knowing to the applicants prior to the alleged occurrence. She stated that their names were disclosed in the conversations made by the accused persons. It is further contended that the statement of the prosecutrix was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. it was a tutored statement and she herself has staled that she was left at Etah Railway Station by the three accused persons at 3 p.m., after committing the alleged offence.
6. It is opposed by the learned A.G.A. by submitting that by force the prosecutrix was kidnapped by the applicants and other co-accused and she was taken at postal and knife point, she was raped by the applicants and other co-accused several times. Her statement was recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. also in which she clearly stated that she was forcefully kidnapped and rape was committed with her by the applicants and the other co-accused. This statement was recorded on 16.3.2004. The statement of the prosecutrix has also been recorded as P.W. 1 in the trial court. She has corroborated the prosecution story and she has clearly stated that she was raped by the applicant and other co-accused. She was illegally detained in the field, her limbs were tight by rope and after committing rape she was left at the Railway Station from where she came at her house. The applicants have not shown any specific reason of their false implication. The rape was committed with her at postol and knife point. In such a circumstances, it was not possible for the prosecutrix to make any effective protest at the cost of her life because she was helpless and she was under the custody of the applicants and other co-accused.
7. The prosecutrix was used to sexual intercourse, in such a situation if no injury was seen on her persons it does not make the prosecution story doubtful as the statement of P.W. 1 prosecutrix has been recorded in the court and the case is at evidence stage, in case the applicants are released on bail, they shall tamper with the evidence because they are very powerful persons and they may not be released on bail.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and submission made by the learned Counsel for the applicants and the learned A.G.A. and considering the allegations made against the applicants, which are serious in nature and considering the statement of the prosecutrix recorded as P.W. 1 by the trial court and without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the applicants are not entitled for bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail is, refused.
9. Accordingly this application is rejected.