Allahabad High Court
Amar Singh & Another vs State Of U.P. on 30 October, 2013
Bench: Ashok Srivastava
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 45
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 4807 of 2013
Appellant :- Amar Singh & Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Shailendra Singh Rathore
Counsel for Respondent :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Ashok Srivastava,J.
Notice has been accepted by the learned A.G.A. on behalf of the State.
The appeal is admitted for hearing.
Objection may be filed within three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a week thereafter.
Summon the lower court record.
This appeal has been jointly filed by the appellants namely Amar Singh and Sipahi Lal Kahar. The appellant no.1 Amar Singh has found guilty under section 376 I.P.C. and sentenced to 10 years R.I. also with other sections 363, 366 I.P.C. Fine has also been imposed.
The bail prayer of the appellant no.1 Amar Singh shall be considered after receipt of the written objection and counter affidavit.
Let the matter be listed on 17.12.2013 for disposal of the bail prayer of the appellant no.1 Amar Singh. By that time the State may file written objection and counter affidavit.
The appellant no.2 Sipahi Lal Kahar has been found guilty by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (S.C./S.T. Act), Kannauj in S.T. No.183 of 2006 arising out of Case Crime No.484 of 2004, Police Station Chhibramau, District Kannauj, under sections 363, 366 I.P.C only and sentenced to 5 years R.I. on both counts. Fine has also been imposed.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
My attention has been drawn towards the statement of the medical officer and it has been submitted that keeping in view such statement the possibility that the girl was major on the relevant date cannot be ruled out. It has further been submitted that it appears quite improbable that the appellant was present in the agricultural field at about 11-12 P.M. despite the fact that there is nothing on record which is indicative of the fact the co-appellant Amar Singh knew that the prosecutrix will come there at such hours of night. It has also been submitted that no allegation of rape is there against the appellant no.2 Sipahi Lal Kahar.
The bail application has been opposed by the learned A.G.A.
The appellant no.2 Sipahi Lal Kahar has been sentenced to 5 years R.I. only. The allegations levelled against the said appellant from the side of the prosecutrix do not inspire confidence. The age of the prosecutrix may be 18 years or above.
Considering all aspects of the case and without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the case, I am of the view that the appellant no. 2 Sipahi Lal Kahar should be released on bail.
Let the appellant no.2 Sipahi Lal Kahar convicted in S.T. No. 183 of 2006 arising out of Case Crime No.484 of 2004, under sections 363, 366 I.P.C, Police Station Chhibramau, District Kannauj be released on bail during the pendency of the appeal on his furnishing a personal bond with two reliable sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
The relalization of half amount of fine imposed upon the appellant no.2 Sipahi Lal Kahar by the learned lower court shall remain stayed.
Order Date :- 30.10.2013
RU
