RAM AVTAR Vs. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl. M.B. No.8145/2015 in CRL.A.1198/2015

(2.) Counsel for the appellants submits that both the appellants have undergone a period of approximately 3 years 7 months 6 days out of 10 years sentence awarded to them. He further submits that the case of prosecution is highly improbable and in fact due to inimical terms, the appellants were falsely implicated in this case. The prosecutrix was residing in a jhuggi of size 8x6 fts. As per the admission of PW3-the husband of the proscutrix, there was a connecting gate between two jhuggis and the connecting gate was locked by the landlord. Prosecutrix as well as her husband have admitted in cross-examination that before going to sleep, they had bolted the gate from inside. The incident is alleged to have taken place at about 2:00 a.m. when prosecurix was sleeping in her jhuggi along with her husband. It is highly improbable that the accused persons would enter the jhuggi and in the presence of husband of the prosecutrix, would commit rape on her. Moreover, according to the prosecutrix, she was subjected to rape not only once but on the same night after committing rape, they went away and again came and then subjected her to further rape. It is highly improbable that when the husband was sleeping in the same jhuggi, he would not have heard the noise of the prosecutrix or would have come to her rescue. Other discripancies were also pointed out by submitting that the prosecutrix did not inform about the incident to her husband on the same day and there is delay in lodging the FIR. Initially the prosecutrix did not agree for her medical examination and when subsequently again she was taken for medical examination, no injury was found on her person. The FSL result has also not supported the prosecution. The husband of the prosecutrix has admitted that he did not pay rent for the last two months to the landlord Sh. Soordas and when the rent was demanded, quarrel took place. The appellants being the relatives of Soordas slapped her husband. Therefore, the prosecutrix and her husband got annoyed and falsely implicated them in this case. Counsel further submits that there is no likelihood of hearing of the appeal recently. As such, they be released on bail.

(3.) Learned APP for the State, on the other hand, submits that even if the medical evidence or the FSL result does not go against the appellants, there is the testimony of the prosecutrix connecting the accused with crime and as held by Honourable Supreme Court and this Court, testimony of a prosecutrix herself is sufficient to convict the accused. Moreover, even half of the sentence has not been served by the appellants, as such, they are not entitled to be released on bail.