SHOKAT ALI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. V.S. Chauhan, the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Javed Choudhary, the learned Public Prosecutor for State and Mr. S.S. Sunda, the learned counsel for the complainant.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following contentions :- firstly, there is an animosity between the prosecutrix and the family members of the accused, as the prosecutrix, sister-in-law, was living with the present appellant. Secondly, due to the animosity, the prosecutrix had fabricated a false case against the appellant. The falsity of the case is apparent from the fact that according to Dr. Shivangi (PW 18), the prosecutrix was between the ages of 18-19 years; since her hymen was torn, she was habitual to sexual intercourse. According to Dr. Shivangi (PW 18), despite the fact that the prosecutrix was allegedly gang raped, yet there was no physical injury on her body. In fact, according to the witness, the prosecutrix was examined just three days after the incident. She had normal gait and did not show any sign of psychological shock. Secondly, no semen had been detected on her private parts, or on the clothes worn by her. Thirdly, although the prosecutrix claims that it was a case of gang rape, but the investigating agency did not chargesheet Khalia. Moreover, although Sakir and Smt. Afsana were chargesheeted, they have been acquitted. Fourthly, the parties have already entered into compromise, a fact noted by the learned trial court. But despite the parties having entered into compromise, the appellant has already undergone four years of his sentence.

(3.) LEARNED Public Prosecutor has vehemently, opposed the grant of bail.