Back
2019 Supreme(All) 421
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Siddharth, J.
Mahboob Pandey And Others - Appellants
Vs.
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2564 of 2017
Decided On : 02-04-2019
Rajesh Kumar Pandey, Adv., Ajay Kumar, Adv., Mayank Yadav, Adv., Mumtaz Ali, Adv., Shad Khan, Adv., Sunil Vashisth, Adv., Vivek Kumar Singh, Adv., Mohd Samiuzzaman Khan, Adv., Sunil Kumar, Adv.
The need for convincing and reliable evidence in rape cases, the presumption of non-consent under Section 114-A of the Evidence Act, and the assessment of the victim's statement in light of surrounding circumstances and medical evidence.
Headnote:
RAPE - Criminal Appeal - Sections 366, 376 (2)(G), 506, 147 IPC - Indecent Representation of Woman (Prohibition) Act, 1986
Fact of the Case:
The prosecutrix alleged that she was kidnapped, raped, and held in captivity by the accuseds. The accuseds claimed that the prosecutrix married one of them and lived with him for seven months before running away and making the allegations.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the victim to be major and dropped certain charges due to lack of evidence. The court convicted the accuseds of kidnapping, threatening, and raping the prosecutrix. However, the High Court acquitted the accuseds, concluding that the prosecution failed to prove its case.
Issues: Validity of the prosecutrix's allegations, marriage between the prosecutrix and one of the accuseds, and the applicability of Section 114-A of the Evidence Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for convincing and reliable evidence in rape cases, the presumption of non-consent under Section 114-A of the Evidence Act, and the assessment of the victim's statement in light of surrounding circumstances and medical evidence.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the judgment and acquitted the accuseds, deeming the conviction and sentence unjustifiable.
Siddharth, J.
Heard Sri Shad Khan, learned Counsel for the appellants, learned AGA for the State, Sri Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan learned Counsel for the informant and perused the lower court's record.
2. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 08.05.2017 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Court No.3, Bulandshahr, in Session Trial No. 933 of 2011, (State of U.P. Vs. Mahboob Pandy and others), S.T. No. 238 of 2012 (State of U.P. Vs. Nawab), arising out of Case Crime No. 474 of 2011, under Sections, 366, 376 (2)(G), 506, 147 IPC, Police Station Khurja Nagar, District Bulandshahr.
3. The appellants have been convicted under Section 366 IPC and sentenced to 7 years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine additional imprisonment of one year each; under Section 376 (2)(G) IPC sentenced to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.35,000/- each and in default of payment of fine additional imprisonment of two years each; under Section 506 IPC sentenced to 4 years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine additional imprisonment of 6 months each; under Section 147 IPC sentenced to 1 year's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine additional imprisonment of three month each has been directed.
4. The prosecution case, in short, is that the prosecutrix gave an application dated 8.5.2011 before the In-charge, Kotwali, Khurja City, stating that on 25.10.2010 at about 5:00 p.m., she was passing through Mohalla, Radha Krishna, for purchasing some goods and for getting photocopies of some documents, when she was kidnapped and forcibly taken away in a Car by Mahboob Pandey S/o Jaan Mohammad R/o Mohalla Mugalpura Khurja, Abid Bhatola, Yaseen, Nawab and Javed, sons of Yameen R/o Mohalla Shekhpen, Khurja, who were standing there. In the Car, Mahboob Pandey put a handkerchief on her nose and she became unconscious and regained consciousness only at Delhi in a closed room. The above persons kept her at an unknown place in captivity. Abid Bhatola and Mahboob Pandey committed rape on her from 25.10.2010 to 7.11.2010 and Yaseen, Nawab and Javed used to beat her and threatened her from 25.10.2010 to 03.5.2011 and they also committed rape on her. Mother of aforesaid Abid Bhatola and other accuseds, Aneesha, used to keep her under her observation by extending threats and she used to instigate the accuseds and also assisted them in commission of her rape. These persons got her signatures on some papers. She suffered torture due to helplessness. On 03.05.2011 when Yaseen, Nawab and Javed had gone out and their mother was asleep, she escaped from their captivity at 2:00 p.m. and returned to her house at Khurja and informed her parents about the entire incident.
5. On the basis of the application of the prosecutrix, Police Station Khurja City, District Bulandshahr, registered Case Crime 474 of 2011, under Sections 147, 364, 323, 342, 376 IPC against on accuseds 08.5.2011 at 15:50.
6. The Investigating Officer investigated the case and prepared site plan, victim was medically examined and finally charge-sheet was submitted in S.T. No. 933 of 2011 against Mahboob Pandey, Abid Bhatolaa and Yaseen, under Sections 147, 364, 323, 342, 376, 504, 506 IPC.
7. The trial court framed charges against the accuseds, Mahboob Pandey, Abid Bhatola and Yaseen, under Sections 147, 363, 366, 376, 323/149, 504, 506 IPC and Indecent Representation of Woman (Prohibition), Act, 1986. The accuseds denied the charges and sought trial.
8. In Sessions Trial No. 238 of 2012, charges were framed against accused, Nawab, under Sections 147, 363, 366, 323/149, 376, 504, 506, 342, 364 IPC. The accused denied charges and sought trial.
9. In Sessions Trial No. 933 of 2011, the prosecutrix filed an application for amendment of charges against Mahboob Pandey, Abid Bhatola and Yaseen and Nawab and therefore, the charges were a
