Back
2006 Supreme(Raj) 2411
High Court Of Rajasthan
Judgename : R.P. Vyas
Ramswaroop - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ (Habeas Corpus) Petition No. 4773 of 2006
Decided On : 10/10/2006
Mr. S.D. Goswami, for the Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Vyas, Government Advocate.
The court emphasized the duty of the State to provide necessary assistance to victims of sexual violence and highlighted the need to protect witnesses from tampering.
Headnote:
Habeas Corpus - Unlawful Detention - IPC 376(2)(b), IPC 364, CrPC 164 - The court discussed the unlawful detention of the victim, tampering of the main witness, and the failure of the prosecution agency to provide necessary assistance to the victim. The court emphasized the need for financial, medical, psychological, and social assistance to the victim and directed the restoration of her job.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought the production of his sister, who was a victim of rape and allegedly under unlawful detention by the accused. The victim expressed her desire to stay with her parents after being produced before the court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the victim was under tremendous mental pressure and there were attempts to tamper with the main witness. It criticized the prosecution agency for not providing necessary assistance to the victim.
Issues: Unlawful detention, tampering of witness, failure to provide necessary assistance to the victim.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for financial, medical, psychological, and social assistance to the victim and directed the restoration of her job.
Final Decision: The court directed the victim to be free to stay with her parents, provided police protection, and restored her job in the office of DPEP at Hanumangarh.
N.N. Mathur, J.-By way of instant habeas corpus petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner Ramswaroop seeks production of his sister namely Sunita @ Santosh. It appears that the detenue Sunita @ Santosh is a victim of rape. She lodged a First Information Report at Police Station, Hanumangarh alleging therein that while she was serving as Office Assistant in the Department of DPEP, Hanumangarh, she was being sexually exploited by the Head of the Office namely Onkar Singh R.A.S. and his associates namely Dhanne Singh, Bachhu Singh, Gurudev Singh, Shiv Narain and Milkha Singh. The police registered a case being FIR No. 239/2006 at Police Station, Hanumangarh for offence under Section 376(2)(b) IPC. Her statement under Section 164 CrPC was recorded on 28.04.2006 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Hanumangarh. After usual investigation a charge-sheet has been filed against the said accused persons for offence under Section 376(2)(b) IPC.
2. An another FIR came to be filed on 15.08.2006 by the petitioner herein Ramswaroop stating inter alia that on 13.08.2006 Dharamvir, mother of Praveen and Babli W/o Dharamvir visited their house and pressurized them to enter into a compromise. When they refused to oblige them a threatening was given of ill consequences. On 15.08.2006 while Sunita @ Santosh was on way to her maternal uncles house, she was being stopped. She was being kidnapped by three persons in a Car. According to the informant the kidnappers were none else but two of the sons of accused in rape case referred to above i.e. Bunti S/o Bachhu Singh and another son of Onkar Singh. The third accused has been named as Praveen. On this information police registered a FIR Case No. 294/2006 for offence under Sections 364, 195 IPC at Police Station, Pilibanga.
3. The petitioner has produced a newspaper reporting of Rajasthan Patrika dated 26.08.2006 and a similar news appearing in Danik Bhaskar. It was reported that the detenue Sunita @ Santosh on her own alongwith Advocate Shri D.P. Pujari appeared before the Investigating Officer and filed an affidavit stating that she left the house on her own as his brother, mother and maternal uncle wanted to give her in Nata marriage.
4. It is contended by the petitioner that Sunita @ Santosh is under unlawful detention of the accused persons in FIR Case No. 239/2006. A false and fabricated affidavit has been arranged by the family members and friends of Onkar Singh and other accused persons. The petitioner Ramswaroop also filed an additional affidavit stating inter alia that he has also been served upon a notice by Shri
D.P. PujariAdvocate. He has been threatened by Mr. Pujari of taking action in event he approaches to any Government or other Institution for the benefit of Sunita @ Santosh. 5. Pursuant to the order of this Court, the detenue Sunita @ Santosh was produced before us by the police on 20.09.2006. It was disclosed by her that she was staying at the house of Shri D.P. Pujari Advocate at Jaipur. She further stated that she was lodged in the house of one Pyare Lal in the locality known as Pratap Nagar, Sector No. 18, Jaipur. She further stated that his wife Smt. Prem Lata was looking after her. She was being assured a job by the accused persons in the ICICI Bank as agent. She expressed her desire not to return to the house of her parents as she was likely to get job as assured.
6. We have recorded our impression in the order dated 20.09.2006. It will be convenient to extract
the part of the order as follows:-"We have gathered an impression while talking the detenue Sunita @ Santosh that she is under tremendous mental pressure. The possibility of tampering of the main witness in the rape case referred to above cannot be ruled out. It is unfortunate that the police has not taken care to follow the directions given by this Court in Suo Motos case popularly known as (German Lady) rape case. Some of the directions given in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2856/
