SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(All) 582

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Shiv Shanker
BANWARI ALIAS BANAI SINGH
Versus
STATE OF U P
Decided On : 09 March 2007
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 3074 of 2007

Advocates:
LALIT KUMAR SHUKLA, R.P.TRIPATHI,

Prima facie case of gang rape can be established based on the victim's statement and medical examination report, and the presumption of absence of consent as per Section 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Headnote:

Rape - Gang Rape - Prima facie case of gang rape established based on victim's statement and medical examination report

Fact of the Case:

The bail application was filed in a case of gang rape under Section 376 IPC, where the victim alleged that she was raped by two accused, including the applicant, simultaneously without consent.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the victim's statement and medical examination report established a prima facie case of gang rape, and there was no evidence to rebut the presumption of absence of consent as per Section 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Issues: The main issue was whether the bail application should be granted in a case of gang rape where the victim's statement and medical examination report indicated lack of consent.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the victim's statement, medical examination report, and the presumption of absence of consent as per Section 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to reject the bail application.

Final Decision: The bail application was rejected by the court.

SHIV SHANKER, J.

This is first bail application moved on behalf of applicant in case Crime No. 139 of 2006, under Section 376 IPC, Police Station Magora, District Mathura.

2. Briefly, the prosecution case, according to the First Information Report, is that first informant Satyavir son of Ram Prasad lodged a First Information Report on 4-11-2006 at 1. 10 a. m. against two accused, namely, Duli Chandra and Banwari alias Banai Singh for the offence under Section 376 IPC alleging that when his wife Smt. Maya was returning on 3-11-2006 in the night at about 8. 00 p. m. after serving meal to him in the agriculture field and reached near the field of Yuvraj Singh, both the accused persons met her and they forcibly fallen down her and committed rape upon her one by one. She raised an alarm upon which he came there from his field. Thereafter, both the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence. Due to night and fear, he did not lodge the F. I. R. at the concerned police station on the same night but lodged it on the very next day.

3. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the whole records.

4. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that present applicant and co-accused Duli Chandra are son and nephew respectively of the victim and in such circumstances, both cannot commit the offence of rape upon the prosecutrix. It is further contended that the prosecutrix is a married woman and no injury was found on her person as well as on her private part according to her medical examination report. Therefore, she may be a consenting party. It is further contended that there was

dispute regarding the field between both the parties. Therefore, the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case.

5. On the other hand, learned A. G. A. has submitted that it is a case of gang rape.

6. After considering the submissions made on behalf of both the parties, it appears that it is a case of gang rape according to the statement of victim Smt. Maya, who is the wife of first informant. She has specifically stated in her statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr. P. C. that the present applicant alongwith co-accused Duli Chandra had committed rape upon her simultaneously without consent. It is worthwhile to mention here that no woman can give consent for sexual intercourse at the same moment for more than one. A woman cannot give consent for sexual intercourse of two persons. There is no argument of the learned Counsel for the applicant regarding her suspicious character. According to the statement of prosecutrix, it is the prima facie case of gang rape. It has been provided in Sections 114- A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as under:

"114-A. Presumption as to absence of consent in certain prosecution for rape.-In a prosecution for rape.-In a prosecution for rape under clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c) or clause (d) or clause (e) or clause (g) of sub-section (2) of Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), where sexual intercourse by the accused is proved and the question is whether it was without the consent of the woman alleged to have been raped and she states in her evidence before the Court that she did not consent, the Court shall presume that she did not consent ).

7. No argument has been advanced by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant to rebut such presumption. The version of the prosecution is supported with the medical examination report of the prosecutrix. There is no inordinate delay in lodging the First Information Report although the delay has no significance in rape cases. In such circumstances, I do not find any force in the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicant. Therefore, this bail application is liable to be rejected.

8. Consequently, this bail application is hereby rejected.

Application rejected.


.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top