Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.30 seconds)Mohd. Iqbal M. Shaikh & Ors vs The State Of Maharashtra on 15 April, 1998
In Mohd. Iqbal's case (supra), a learned Single Bench of
this court has indeed released on bail a police personnel
facing trial for commission of offence under section 372
(2) (a) RPC for allegedly having committed rape on a lady,
who was in his custody during investigation of a case. The
judgment rendered by the learned Bench, however,
cannot be applied in the fact situation of the case on hand
for the simple reason that in that case one of the grounds
B.A. No. 63/2017 Page 5 of 11
6
on which bail was sought was that the prosecutrix had not
supported the case of the prosecution in her deposition
before the trial court and rather had denied the allegation
of rape on her by the accused and stated also that she
was compelled to lodge the report against the accused
therein by the SDPO and a lady Police Officer. In granting
the bail, learned Bench, amongst other reasons, noticed
that the prosecutrix has not given statement according to
the prosecution story. There is another reason for which
the judgment rendered by the learned Single Bench could
not have been followed without considering the legal
position arising pursuant to the amendment to the Cr.P.C
and the RPC by the Jammu and Kashmir Criminal Laws
(Amendment) Act, 2013 (for short the Amendment Act of
2013), which it appears has not attracted consideration of
the learned Bench in that case.
Jammu and Kashmir Criminal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2013
The Arms Act, 1959
Section 173 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Aslam vs State Of U.P on 13 February, 2013
12. In order to surpass the rigor of the restriction
contemplated under proviso section 497-C Cr.P.C. the
main plank of petitioners' case is that the evidence given
by the prosecutrix in the trial court read in light of the
evidence of the doctor, PW-Dr. Shafika Bano, does not
prove commission of offence of rape on the prosecutrix
by the petitioners. It is contended that the prosecutrix has
falsely implicated them at the behest of a person against
whom petitioner No.2 is a prosecution witness in a case
under section 366/376 RPC. The said person, however,
has not been named in the bail application nor does any
B.A. No. 63/2017 Page 9 of 11
10
such suggestion seem to have been made to the
prosecutrix in her cross-examination by the defence. It
would, however, not be proper to discuss in detail or give
any indication about the incriminating value of the
testimony of the prosecutrix recorded by the trial court
lest that may prejudice the defence of the petitioners at
the trial of the case. The least that can be said is that the
prosecutrix has deposed in line with the prosecution case
and has not exonerated the petitioners directly or by
implication. The evidentiary value of the evidence of
prosecutrix in a case of rape is too well known and is
governed by well settled legal principles (see Aslam v
State of U. P. (2014)13 SCC 350 and Hem Raj v State of
Haryana, (2014) 2 SCC 395). The judgment in Raja and
ors. (supra) relied upon on behalf of the petitioners
cannot be applied in a bail application as the same is
based on the analysis of the evidence of the prosecutrix
at final judgment stage and it is too well known that
criteria of appreciating the evidence/material at bail stage
is different than the criteria at the final judgment stage.
1