Kishan vs State of U.P.

Amar Saran and S.K. Jain, JJ.—Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the report.

Appellant-Kishan is seeking bail in this appeal against the judgment and order dated 26.7.2006, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 2, Aligarh in, State v. Kishan S.T. No. 6 of 1999 under Sections 307 and 376, I.P.C. and Section 3(12), S.C./S.T. Act, P. S. Banna Devi, district Aligarh, whereby the Appellant has been convicted for the charges under Sections 323 and 376, I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v), S.C./S.T. Act and sentenced for the offence u/s 376, I.P.C. to undergo R.I. for a period of ten years along with fine of Rs. 5,000 and in default of payment of fine six months R.I., for offence u/s 323, I.P.C. he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 and in default of payment of fine one month''s simple imprisonment and for the offence u/s 3(2)(v), S.C./S.T. Act he has been sentenced to imprisonment for life alongwith fine of Rs. 5,000 and in default of payment of fine six months R.I.

The prosecution allegations as per the written report made by Kanti at P.S. Banna Devi, district Aligarh on 25.7.1997 at 2.05 p.m. are that the Appellant is resident of village Amarpur. He was tenant in the house of Kanti Devi. On 8.7.1997, he had hired her services for making "pooris" and had taken her to Kunja Gali. At about 9 p.m. when Kanti Devi went to urinate near a tube well and got up after urinating, the Appellant alongwith one unknown person caught her and pulled her near the door of tube well, committed rape upon her and threw into the well. She became unconscious and suffered injuries. She regained conscious in the Hospital. She is a lonely widow.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that there is delay in lodging the F.I.R. First informant Kanti Devi slipped into the well and suffered injuries and the Appellant has been falsely implicated in this case as there was some dispute about the payment of rent. It has further been submitted by the learned Counsel that as the G.D. entry of 9.7.1997 one Yatendra Kumar Sharma stated that Kanti Devi suffered injuries due to fall into the well.

Per contra, learned A.G.A. argued that perusal of injury report of Kanti Devi suggests that on the date of occurrence she had suffered one lacerated wound 2.5 cm. x 5 cm. x muscle deep on left side near vagina, a lacerated wound 3 cm. x .5 cm. x muscle deep around the anus, which was bleeding. She had also suffered lacerated wound inside the vagina near left labia numora 3 cm. lenear abrasion. The prosecutrix has supported the prosecution story and her statement is corroborated by the medical evidence on record. It is now well-settled principle of law that conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of the prosecutrix, if it inspires confidence.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties.

Prima facie, we find that the statement of the prosecutrix is supported by the medical evidence on record. The delay, if any in making the F.I.R. took place because she was admitted in the Hospital. The statement of the prosecutrix in our view appears to be natural and she has no reason to stake her reputation to falsely implicate the Appellant.

In above view of the matter without expressing any opinion on the merits of the appeal, we find that it is not a fit case to release the Appellant on bail during pendency of this appeal. The prayer for bail of Appellant is rejected.