ARUN Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri J.S. Sengar, learned Counsel for the accused-applicant, Sri Nasiruzzaman, learned Counsel for the complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

(2.) The facts of the case are such that expose the man's brutality or display of beastly power to satiate the lust against the person of a helpless woman. She was a worker in an institution named Rapid Road Auto Agency, Sanjay Palace, Agra. Her duty was to secure customers for registration of their vehicles. The accused-applicant called her on a false pretext for providing her 2 - 3 customers who want to get their vehicles registered. She initially declined to go out and asked the accused-applicant to come with customers to her office. The accused-applicant came on his motorcycle to her office along with Sakir- the co-accused. She was called out and taken on the same vehicle for the so called customers, but as per their plan, the accused drove her to a semi-constructed house, that on reaching the said house she noticed the presence of Saket and Bunty. Soon thereafter, two of the four went upstairs to smoke. Those two present were also named by her in the F.I.R. From this, it becomes clear that all the persons were known to her, as such, she had hardly any occasion to apprehend any danger to her person, but the belief was shattered when co-accused Sachin and Yogendra started to misbehave with her despite her protest. They fell her on a cot and she was ravished one by one by all the four persons. This trauma was faced by her, that after the commission of the dastardly crime upon her. The co-accused Sachin drove her back. She narrated her tale of woes to her officers of the department. She also asked them not to disclose these facts to her father, who is a heart patient. She thereafter returned to her house and rested. Thereafter, she again went to her office on the next date wherein she was present in the office till evening. In the evening, when she went to toilet she fell unconscious and after regaining her consciousness she made the impugned F.I.R. In the process of being ravished or otherwise she had suffered injuries on her skull as well. In such circumstances, if these facts or omissions or if there is incoherence in the F.I.R. it is the most natural effect of the trauma that she suffered on her person allegedly at the hands of the accused-applicant and the other co-accused probability cannot be ruled out that she might have been pushed off the vehicle to eliminate her evidence at any later stage. The injuries could have been suffered subsequently in the said process.

(3.) I do not find any valid reason to have any doubt in her statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. so far as it relates to the role attributed to this accused-applicant, she has categorically named the accused-applicant one of the participant of this case of gang rape of heir's. The question that the incident did not occur on 11.8.2004 at 12:30 p.m., it cannot be believed at this stage. The medical officer has made a categorical statement in this regard that the incident could have occurred at the alleged time and date, The relevant portion of the statement is as follows;