Uttarakhand High Court
CRLA/71/2016 on 23 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
BAIL APPLICATION No. 3886 of 2020
In
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 71 of 2016
23TH MARCH, 2021
Between:
Satya Narayan Alias Sattu and another. ...Appellants
and
State of Uttarakhand. ...Respondent
Counsel for the : Mr. Abhishek Verma, learned
appellants. counsel.
Counsel for respondent. : Mr. J.S. Virk, learned Deputy
Advocate General assisted by Mr.
Rakesh Kumar Joshi, learned Brief
Holder for the State.
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT : (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Raghvendra Singh Chauhan)
Mr. Abhishek Verma, the learned counsel for the
appellants has raised the following contentions before this
Court:-
Firstly, the prosecutrix is not trustworthy, as she
does not show any 'confidence'.
2
Secondly, there is no corroborative evidence to
buttress the case of the prosecutrix that she has been
raped by the appellants.
Thirdly, the investigation has left too many
gaping holes, for even the site plan was not prepared,
immediately after the incident was reported. Moreover,
even the fetus, which was naturally aborted by the
prosecutrix, was not collected by the police in order to
seek a DNA report from the FSL.
Fourthly, even the vaginal swab of the
prosecturix did not show the presence of sperms belonging
to the appellants. Therefore, the appellants could not be
convicted for offences under Sections 366, 376(2),
376(D), 506 of IPC, and Section 6 of the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 (for
short "the POCSO Act, 2012").
2. On the other hand, Mr. J.S. Virk, the learned
Deputy Advocate General, submits that the prosecutrix
has withstood the cross-examination by two different
counsels for two different appellants before the trial court.
In her cross-examination, her testimony has not been
shattered. In her examination-in-chief, she has
categorically stated that both the appellants-applicants
repeatedly had physical relationship against her will. She
3
has further stated that they would threaten her that in
case she would reveal about the sexual exploitation to
anyone, the parents or brother of the prosecutrix would be
killed. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, just
the testimony of the prosecutrix, is sufficient for convicting
the appellants for the aforementioned offences.
Secondly, merely because there may be some
lacunae left in the investigation, the poor investigation
does not come to the rescue of the appellants.
Thirdly, it was suggested to the prosecutrix that
she has falsely implicated both the appellants due to
animosity with her family. The said suggestion has been
denied categorically by the prosecutrix. Hence, there is no
reason why the prosecutrix would falsely implicating two
persons.
Fourthly, for the prosecutrix to implicate both
the appellants is to jeopardize her social standing in the
society. Yet, the prosecutrix has been courageous enough
to speak the truth.
Fifthly, the note in her testimony clearly
indicates that although her family had tried to pressurize
her not to tell the truth with regard to one of the
appellants, but even then, she has spoken the truth.
Hence, she is entirely reliable and a trustworthy witness.
4
According to the learned counsel, the testimony of the
prosecutrix, even if not corroborated by other evidence,
can still be treated by the Court almost as a gospel truth.
Lastly, the allegations against the appellants is
that they have committed offences under the POCSO Act.
Therefore, the learned Deputy A.G.A. has vehemently
opposed the grant of bail to the appellants.
3. Without entering into the merits and demerits of
the case, this Court is not inclined to grant the bail to the
appellants, namely, Satya Narayan @ Sattu and Sachin.
Therefore, the Bail Application No.3886 of 2020 is
dismissed, accordingly.
_____________________________
RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, C.J.
___________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt: 23th March, 2021
Mamta/NEHA
