Ram Avtar vs State (Nct of Delhi)

Ms. Sunita Gupta, J.—Crl. M.B. No.8145/2015 in CRL.A.1198/2015

Crl. M.B. No.8163/2015 in CRL.A.1211/2015

Vide these applications, the appellants seek suspension of sentence and release on bail during the pendency of the appeal in case FIR No. 281/12 u/s 376(2)(g) IPC Police Station Vivek Vihar.

Counsel for the appellants submits that both the appellants have undergone a period of approximately 3 years 7 months 6 days out of 10 years sentence awarded to them. He further submits that the case of prosecution is highly improbable and in fact due to inimical terms, the appellants were falsely implicated in this case. The prosecutrix was residing in a jhuggi of size 8x6 fts. As per the admission of PW3-the husband of the proscutrix, there was a connecting gate between two jhuggis and the connecting gate was locked by the landlord. Prosecutrix as well as her husband have admitted in cross-examination that before going to sleep, they had bolted the gate from inside. The incident is alleged to have taken place at about 2:00 a.m. when prosecurix was sleeping in her jhuggi along with her husband. It is highly improbable that the accused persons would enter the jhuggi and in the presence of husband of the prosecutrix, would commit rape on her. Moreover, according to the prosecutrix, she was subjected to rape not only once but on the same night after committing rape, they went away and again came and then subjected her to further rape. It is highly improbable that when the husband was sleeping in the same jhuggi, he would not have heard the noise of the prosecutrix or would have come to her rescue. Other discripancies were also pointed out by submitting that the prosecutrix did not inform about the incident to her husband on the same day and there is delay in lodging the FIR. Initially the prosecutrix did not agree for her medical examination and when subsequently again she was taken for medical examination, no injury was found on her person. The FSL result has also not supported the prosecution. The husband of the prosecutrix has admitted that he did not pay rent for the last two months to the landlord Sh. Soordas and when the rent was demanded, quarrel took place. The appellants being the relatives of Soordas slapped her husband. Therefore, the prosecutrix and her husband got annoyed and falsely implicated them in this case. Counsel further submits that there is no likelihood of hearing of the appeal recently. As such, they be released on bail.

Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, submits that even if the medical evidence or the FSL result does not go against the appellants, there is the testimony of the prosecutrix connecting the accused with crime and as held by Hon''ble Supreme Court and this Court, testimony of a prosecutrix herself is sufficient to convict the accused. Moreover, even half of the sentence has not been served by the appellants, as such, they are not entitled to be released on bail.

There is no quarrel with the propositions of law that a conviction in such like cases can be based on the solitary testimony of prosecutrix provided it is cogent, consistent and reliable. At this juncture, merits of the case are not required to be gone into lest any observation at this stage may affect the final decision of appeal. The submissions require consideration. Appeals are not likely to be heard in near future.

As per the nominal roll, both the appellants have undergone a period of 3 years, 7 months and 6 days. Their conduct has been reported to be satisfactory.

As such, subject to deposit of fine, sentence of the appellants are suspended subject to their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned Registrar. They are further directed to furnish their addresses as well as contact numbers to this court as well as the SHO concerned. They shall appear on each and every date when the appeal is taken up for hearing.

Application stands disposed of.

Order dasti.

CRL.A.1198/2015 & CRL.A.1211/2015

List these appeals in the category of "regulars" at their own turn.