Amar Bahadur Singh vs State Of U.P

AMAR BAHADUR SINGH .. APPELLANT(S)

vs.

STATE OF U.P. .. RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

The respondents have been served but they are not

represented before us.

As per the prosecution story on the 2nd April, 1989

at about 11.45 p.m. the prosecutrix, the daughter in law of

Santu, was sleeping in her in laws' house along with her

daughter and other family members. Her husband was however

away to the Punjab in connection with his employment. On an

alarm raised by the prosecutrix all those at home woke up

and saw that the appellant was committing rape on the

prosecutrix. The appellant was accordingly apprehended on

the spot with the help of a police party which was passing

close by. It was also noticed that the prosecutrix was

bleeding from her private parts. The appellant was

accordingly brought to the police station where a report

was lodged and a case under Section 376 of the IPC was

registered.

-2-

The Trial Court relying on the evidence of PW.1 the

prosecutrix, PW.2 Santu, her father-in-law, and PW.6, her

sister-in-law, held that the case against the accused was

made out and accordingly sentenced him to undergo R.I. for

seven years. The matter was thereafter taken in appeal to

the High Court and the High Court while observing that the

facts of the case indicated that the prosecutrix was a

consenting party thought that in the circumstance it was a

fit case where the sentence ought to be reduced from seven

to five years. The appeal was nevertheless dismissed with

the reduction in the quantum of sentence. This appeal by

way of special leave is now before us.

We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

He has raised only one argument before us. He has pointed

out that the prosecutrix was 26 years of age as on the date

of the incident and was the mother of seven children and

the very fact that the rape had been allegedly committed in

her house not only in the presence of her children and

other family members, the story itself appeared to be

unacceptable. It has also been highlighted that in the

background of the fact that the High Court had observed

that the prosecutrix was a consenting party the accused

ought to have been acquitted on that basis alone.

We find merit in this plea. We find that under the

circumstance the possibility that rape could have been

-3-

committed on her in the presence of so many members in a

small house is difficult to believe. On the contrary the

findings of the High Court that the prosecutrix was a

consenting party appear to be correct and it was perhaps

when the accused and the prosecutrix had been caught red-

handed that the story of rape had been cooked up, to

salvage some of the family honour. This is often the

tendency in such matters. The High Court has therefore gone

completely wrong in dismissing the appeal even after its

categoric observations. We accordingly allow the appeal,

set aside the conviction of the appellant and order his

acquittal. The appellant is on bail; his bail bonds are

discharged.

.................J. (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

....................J. (CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)

New Delhi, January 25, 2011.