Allahabad High Court
Atar Singh & Another vs State Of U.P. on 18 November, 2016
Bench: Karuna Nand Bajpayee
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
? A.F.R.
Court No. - 43
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2265 of 2016
Appellant :- Atar Singh & Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Satya Man Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.
Ref:- Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 146053 of 2016.
Counter affidavit on behalf of the State filed today is taken on record.
This application has been filed seeking the release of the appellants- Atar Singh and Ram Naresh, who have been convicted and sentenced to undergo maximum sentence of 20 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 15,000/- with default stipulation in S.S.T. No. 45 of 2014, State vs. Atar Singh and others, arising out of Case Crime No. 319 of 2013, u/ss. 376(D), 323/34, 504, 506 I.P.C., Police Station- Thariyaon, District- Fatehpur.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned A.G.A.
Perused the record.
Submission of the counsel for the appellants is that though the allegation of committing gang-rape upon the victim has been made, but according to the medical examination she was, at that point of time, carrying a pregnancy of 11weeks and, therefore, in such circumstances pregnancy must have aborted. But it is not the case of prosecution that there was any such abortion that took place and, therefore, the prosecution story is doubtful. Further submission is that the incident is said to have taken place at about 5.00 A.M. in the morning while the victim was examined on the same day at about 7.00 P.M. But according to doctor, the duration has been described as about one day old which is also a contradiction and makes the story doubtful. Next submission is that the appellant- Atar Singh's brother had been murdered regarding which the husband of the victim is facing trial and, therefore, he nurtured enmity against the appellants which has resulted in the false implication of the appellants. It was also pointed out that there was some no confidence motion also which was brought against the husband of the victim, who was the then Pradhan of the village, in which the appellants also participated, and as a result of which move the victim's husband suffered ill-consequences and because of that reason and enmity also, the appellants have been falsely implicated in the case. Submission is that in this background of the facts the appellants should be released on bail.
Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and has submitted that so far as the murder of the appellant- Atar Singh's brother is concerned, it is so obvious on the face of the record that this background gives motive to the appellant- Atar Singh to commit the alleged crime and the motive to wreck vengeance by committing this crime with this background of facts is much more intense than the motive of false implication and it is unreasonable to say that just to falsely implicate the appellants a woman would put her honour at stake and shall expose herself to such kind of infamous case. Submission is that the husband of the victim was a village Pradhan and she enjoys a respectable status in the village and ordinarily it sounds highly improbable and even unpalatable to suggest that a woman with this background simply in order to settle scores would solicit for herself such kind of social dishonour, which in the social context of Indian village life is normally associated with such kind of incidents and which brings a kind of social death and a perennial stigma attached to a woman. Argument is that deposition of the victim in court clearly establishes that when the victim had gone to attend the nature's call, four accused persons, which includes the present appellants in question, had pounced upon her and then she was gang-raped by all the four accused persons. She vehemently resisted but the accused persons, blinded by the lascivious passion, lustfully ravished her despite all resistance which she put. It has also been submitted that in this process of resistance she was also hit by an axe and was kept under threat of life by the accused persons. At that very time somehow after hearing the shrieks, her mother-in-law came over to the spot who has been examined as P.W.-2. Her deposition lends complete corroboration to the prosecution story as has been stated by the victim. Attention was also drawn to the medical examination of the victim which indicates more than one dozen injuries on the person of the victim which are typical marks of abrasions lending clinching corroboration to the version of the victim. Further submission is that so far as the duration of the injuries is concerned, she was examined 14 hours after the incident and the assessment of the doctor about the duration of injury is never accurate or with precision and it is always a broad estimate of the doctor which involves a flexible margin of error of several hours both ways and therefore, it cannot be said that the duration as has been found by doctor is so incompatible or inconsistent with the time of incident as alleged by the victim that it may not be reconciled with each other. Fourteen hours old injuries described as about one day old injuries is not at all an irreconcilable contradiction and the defence argument in this behalf, therefore, lacks substance and cannot go far to help the accused. Similarly, it cannot be said that in all cases where the victim is carrying a pregnancy of three months, it must invariably abort in case of her rape. Submission is that it is a case of gang-rape and the statement of the victim is sufficiently corroborated in all material particulars by her previous statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. and there is absolutely no ambiguity in the allegations made by victim against the appellants. Therefore, there is absolutely no ground to take a liberal view in the matter.
Looking to the nature of offence, its gravity and the evidence in support of it and the overall circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has not made out a case for bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the applicant is rejected.
Order Date :- 18.11.2016
Naresh
