DWARIKA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Case diary of Crime No. 123/2000 of Police Station Bodla (Kavardha) for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 376, 506-B/34. IPC perused. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that on report of Ku. Shashi, daughter of Shiv Kumar (applicant No.3) Ravi, s/c prosecutrix and one Bharosi, brother of the alleged witness Lala are being prosecuted for the offence punishable under Section 376. IPC. therefore to pressurise and exert a compromise, the present prosecutrix has lodged a false complaint. According to him the prosecutrix is an old woman and the present applicants who were real brothers aged between 35 to 61 years, would not commit rape on her.

(2.) Shri Shukla, learned counsel for the State has opposed the application mainly on the ground that applicants have been named in the F.I.R.

(3.) After going through the case diary and the medical report of the prosecutrix and taking into consideration the fact that son of the presecutrix and brother of the alleged witness are being prosecuted, on the report of Ku. Shashi, daughter of applicant No.3. I consider, present to be a fit case for admitting each of the applicant to bail. Application is allowed.