Raju and Another vs State of U.P.

Raj Mani Chauhan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. on the prayer for bail of the accused appellants and perused the trial court''s record.

This appeal has been filed by the accused appellants against the judgment and order dated 25.01.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, F.T.C. No. 28, Barabanki in Sessions Trial No. 322 of 2004 Crime No. 155 of 2002: State v. Raju and Anr. under Sections 376, 354, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x)(xi)(xii) SC/ST Act, Police Station Ram Nagar, District Barabanki whereby learned Additional Sessions Judge has held the accused-appellants guilty u/s 376(G) I.P.C. and has convicted and sentenced each of the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - with default stipulation.

The submission of learned Counsel for the appellants is that the incident is alleged to have taken place on 04.05.2002 while the FIR had been lodged by the prosecutirx on 01.07.2002, which is highly delayed. The prosecutrix has not sufficiently explained the cause of delay in lodging the FIR. Learned Counsel for the appellants contends that the prosecutrix in her written report (Ext Ka-1) has levelled allegation against the accused appellants that they had outraged her modesty when she was coming back to her home. She had gone from his house for certain works. When she after finishing her work was coming back her home accused met her on the way. On their insistences, she had to accompany them. While they were on the way, they outraged to her modesty. Two persons were seen coming from Bichalkha, the accused seeing them escaped away.

Learned Counsel for the appellants further submits that on the written report of the prosecutrix, police of police station Ram Nagar, District Barabanki registered a case under Sections 354, 506 I.P.C. and Section 3(1)(x)(xi)(xii) SC/ST Act against the accused. The statement of the prosecutrix was recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. by the Investigating Officer on 02.07.2002 even she did not level any allegation against the accused that they had committed rape on her. The subsequent statement of prosecutrix was recorded by the Investigating Officer u/s 161 Cr.P.C. and her statement was recorded by the Magistrate u/s 164 Cr.P.C. on 05.08.2002. She in her subsequent statements has levelled charge of committing rape against the accused. The story narrated by the prosecutrix in her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. is different from the story narrated by the prosecutrix in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C. Accused appellants and the prosecutrix belong to the same village. She on account of enmity has falsely implicated the accused appellants just to get an amount of Rs. 25,000/ - as compensation from the Government. The prosecution story as disclosed by the prosecutrix in her statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. is not consistent with her statement recorded by the Magistrate u/s 164 Cr.P.C. The trial court without proper appreciation of evidence has held the accused appellants guilty for the offence under Sections 376(G) I.P.C. In fact, the evidence led by the prosecution is not reliable. The accused-appellants were on bail during trial and they did not misuse the liberty of bail. Therefore, they deserve to be released on bail.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

Considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Government Advocate. Keeping in view facts and circumstances of the case as well as the fact that accused appellants were on bail during trial and they did not misuse the liberty of bail, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the appeal, appellants may be released on bail.

Let accused-appellants Raju and Rajju be released on bail in aforesaid Sessions Trial number during pendency of the appeal on their furnishing personal bond with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned.

However, the realization of fine is not stayed and the same be deposited by the appellants, if not already deposited, within 30 days from the date of their release, failing which this order of bail shall stand cancelled.