Back
2018 Supreme(All) 1682
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAHUL CHATURVEDI, J.
Shivnath Gupta - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 220 of 2018
Decided on : 09-07-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Pulak Ganguly, Anurodh Tripathi
For the Respondent: G.A., Sunita Sharma
The judgment establishes the need to prevent the misuse of the SC/ST Act and emphasizes the importance of balancing its objectives with the rights of ordinary citizens.
Headnote:
SC/ST Act - Bail Rejection - Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - [Section 14-A(2) SC/ST Act] - The judgment discusses the misuse of the SC/ST Act, the safeguards to strike a balance between the object of the SC/ST Act and the valuable rights of ordinary citizens guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It also highlights the financial incentives available for lodging a case under the SC/ST Act and the floodgate of frivolous criminal prosecutions against ordinary citizens with impunity.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was accused of raping a married woman from the Scheduled Tribes community. The appellant's counsel argued that the medical report refuted the rape allegations, and the victim's statements were contradictory. The opposite party no.2 claimed that the FIR was lodged under pressure from villagers and local political leaders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the victim's affidavit mentioned that she was coerced into filing the FIR and that no such incident had occurred. The court allowed the appeal, quashed the bail rejection order, and directed the appellant's release on bail.
Issues: The issues revolved around the veracity of the rape allegations, the coercion of the victim in filing the FIR, and the misuse of the SC/ST Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to prevent the misuse of the SC/ST Act and highlighted the safeguards to balance its objectives with the rights of ordinary citizens.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, quashed the bail rejection order, and directed the appellant's release on bail. It also directed an inquiry to recover the amount received by the victim from the State.
RAHUL CHATURVEDI, J.
1. Heard Sri Pulak Ganguly, learned counsel for the appellant, Sunita Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and learned AGA and perused the record.
2. The instant criminal appeal is under Section 14-A(2) Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is targeted against bail rejection on behalf of the appellant bearing bail application no. 319 of 2017 vide order dated 20.05.2017 by In-charge Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Sonbhadra.
3. Pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court, notices were served upon opposite party no.2 and on 17.12.2017 opposite party no.2 has filed counter affidavit through her counsel which was taken on record on 18.01.2018. Similarly learned AGA too has filed his counter affidavit on 16.01.2018 which was taken on record. Learned counsel for the appellant has opted not to file any rejoinder affidavit and wish to argue the case on merit.
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the applicant has falsely been implicated by the opposite party no.2 Sonmati by lodging an FIR as case crime no. 0006 of 2017, under Sections 376 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, P.S. Hathinala, District Sonbhadra, for the incident said to have been taken place on 21.04.2018. This FIR came into existence on 22.04.2017 against sole named accused appellant Shivnath Gupta and consequently the appellant is behind the bars since 24.04.2017.
5. The brief facts which has given rise to the present appeal is, that informant is a married woman aged about 28 years belongs to Scheduled Tribes community. While her husband not present, taking advantage of this void around 10.30 in the morning the applicant who himself is aged about 50-55 years, made an inquiry about her husband and ensuring that there is nobody inside, barged into her dwelling unit and mercilessly ravished her dignity and honour after committing sexual assault upon her. When her husband came back on 22.04.2018 the victim narrated the entire incident to him and as such the present FIR came into existence on 22.04.2017. Soon after lodging of the FIR appellant was arrested by the police and sent to jail since then he is behind the bars.
6. The appellant moved an bail application before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.2 bearing bail application no. 319 of 2017 but the same was rejected by incharge Sessions Judge on 20.05.2017 after assigning sketchy reasons.
7. After getting the bail application rejected from In-charge Sessions Judge, Sonbhadra, the appellant through his nephew approached this Court. Since the nephew of the appellant was being illiterate person and was not aware of the amendment in the SC/ST Act and the manner and the period of limitation to be computed and therefore there is delay in filing the present appeal. Though the said delay eventually was condoned by the order of the Court dated 14.12.2017 and office was directed to allot regular number to the present appeal. Thus the present appeal for final arguments.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn the attention of the Court to the medical report of the alleged prosecutrix and the age certificate issued by CMO, Sonbhadra whereby the CMO opined that she is 22 years, a married woman. The medical report have candidly refuted and negated, the factum of rape upon her. There was no injury over her external part of the body or internal part so as to even suggest that she was ever subject of any sexual assault upon her. But in her statements 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C., she stubbornly asserted the version of FIR claiming that she was subjected to rape by appellant. She has reiterated the same version before learned Magistrate in her 164 Cr.P.C. statement.
9. Per contra learned AGA and learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 have filed their respective affidavits. Learned AGA in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit has submitted that the appellant is having no criminal antecedent except the presen
