BALBIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these petitions are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same FIR No. 36 of 2014 of 24.09.2014 registered at Police Station, Shillai.

(2.) THE present applications have been filed by the bail applicants under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for enlarging them on bail for theirs allegedly having committed offences punishable under Sections 313, 376, 354 -B of the IPC and Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, recorded in FIR No. 36 of 2014 of 24.9.2014, registered at Police Station, Shillai, Distt. Sirmour, H.P.

(3.) THE allegations against bail applicant Prithvi Singh are of his initially in November, 2013 having perpetrated forcible sexual intercourse on the person of the Prosecutrix/victim and his having continuously for five months thereafter, too done likewise. She is also alleged to have conceived a child from the loins of the bail applicant Prithvi Singh besides, both Prithvi Singh and bail applicant Charan Singh are alleged to have forcibly aborted the child carried by the Prosecutrix/victim in her womb. However, the complaint/FIR at the instance of the victim/prosecutrix came to be belatedly lodged against the co -bail applicant Prithvi Singh on 24.09.2014. The delay in its lodging is inordinate. The protracted delay in the filing/lodging of the FIR against the co -bail applicant Prithvi Singh does surge forth an inference of its institution being begotten by premeditation and concoction. Obviously then the allegations comprised in the FIR against Prithvi Singh may prima facie be construable to be tainted with the vice of prevarication. Moreover, the concomitant inference of sexual intercourses, if any, of the bail applicant Prithvi Singh with the prosecutrix/victim being consensual also arises. What aggravates the inference aforesaid is comprised in the factum of hers having conceived a child from the loins of bail applicant Prithvi Singh. Even if the child carried by the prosecutrix/victim in her womb as purportedly begotten from the loins of bail applicant Prithvi Singh was allegedly forcibly aborted, yet the factum of its abortion having been sequeled by force having remained un -complained to the police or to the Gram Panchayat, leaves open an inference that she too consented to its abortion. Consequently, even if, the learned Deputy Advocate General submits that she is working as a bonded labourer in the lands of co -bail applicant Tota Ram son of Shri Tulsi Ram which factum dissuaded her from promptly lodging a complaint before the quarter concerned articulating therein the grievances which have been belatedly conveyed by her in the month of September, 2014, nonetheless, the said submission looses its force in the face of the bail applicant Tota Ram bearing the parentage of Tulsi Ram whereas with the disclosure in the status report of the victim/prosecutrix working in the fields of Tota Ram son of Shri Bhup Singh, hence, with the latter bearing a parentage contradistinct to the one born by the bail applicant Tota Ram belies not only the factum of hers working as a bonded labour in the lands of bail applicant Tota Ram but also benumbs the said factum constituting a dissuasive factor for the victim to omit to promptly lodge a complaint with the quarter concerned. As a sequel with delay having remained unexplained, concomitantly shears the allegations in the FIR of any vestige of truth. Nonetheless, even if, she was assumingly, purportedly working as a bonded labourer in the fields of Tota Ram son of Shri Tulsi Ram, she could have complained the matter to the quarter concerned at the earliest. The inordinate prolonged reticence of the victim/prosecutrix does convey her consensuality to the acts, if any, of the bail applicants Prithvi Singh and Charan Singh. In aftermath, prima facie at this stage, it is apparent that no offence is constituted against the bail applicants Prithvi Singh and Charan Singh.