RATAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is bail application under Sec. 439 Cr. P.C. regarding an incident which took place on 16/17th Aug., 1984, The accused petitioner is in custody since 16.9.86.

(2.) An FIR bearing No. 214/84 was lodged for offence under Section 376 IPC., in which prosecutrix Smt. Kistoori stated that she was asked to accompany by co-accused Hanuman on false pretext and two other persons also accompanied him. While going, accused Hanuman put her into a room alongwith two persons and closed the room from out side. She stated that none of them committed rape with her. Thereafter Hanuman opened the door and all of them ran away. Since the other 2 persons could not be arrested, therefore, case proceeded against co-accused Hanuman alone. Hanuman was acquitted by the court of Sessions vide its judgment dated 3 9.1986. In this case Mt. Sampat PW 2, wife of son of the prosecutrix stated that on return of prosecutrix to home her mother-in-law had told her that accused Hanuman had committed rape with her. The prosecutrix P.W. 4 however, in her statement stated that while she was standing at about 5.00 P,M. near Pyau, accused Hanuman told her that his son and her daughter-in-law are calling her to cinema, therefore, she accompanied Hanuman. When they reached Cinema hall, she did not find her son and daughter in law there and Hanuman told her that they are in another cinema hall and she accompanied him again. She further stated that on the way, Hanuman ran away and one another person caught hold of her and committed rape with her. Thereafter she came to Cinema ball in search of Hanuman, but Hanuman went inside the cinema hall. Thereafter she waited of out side for him to come out and when Hanuman came out of the cinema after the show was over, she called him. but he ran away. At that time two other persons were also with Hanuman. Thereafter she lodged a report in the morning about this incident.

(3.) Mr. Suresh Pareek. learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the accused petitioner is in custody since 16.9.1986 and main accused Hanuman has been acquitted by the court on account of changing version of the alleged incident given by the prosecutrix herself. Her statement is contradictory to that of her own daughter-in-law, P.W. 2, who stated in the court that the prosecutrix had told her on return to the home that accused Hanuman had committed rape with her.