Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 268 (HP)

SUMAN v. CHANCHLA DEVI

2004-10-08

M.R.VERMA

body2004
JUDGMENT M.R. Verma, J.: - Since both these petitions under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure preferred by the petitioners/accused (hereafter referred to as the accused persons) for grant of bail in case FIR No. 137/04 dated 25.7.2004 under Sections 363, 366-A, 376, 342, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station, Gagret, arise out the same F.I.R., therefore, are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Prosecution case is that the prosecutrix, aged about 16 years, resides with her mother in village Tatehda. Her mother was beaten up by one Suman Kumari of the same village and the occurrence was reported to the police by the mother of the prosecutrix. On 20.7.2004 the accused persons came to the house of the prosecutrix in a vehicle driven by Papa @ Parminder Singh. They were accompanied by one Rockey @ Stainder Singh. The accused assured the mother of the prosecutrix that they would recommend her case to the officers. While returning accused Suman distantly related as Chachi to the prosecutrix, requested the mother of the prosecutrix to send the prosecutrix with her. On this younger brother of the prosecutrix, namely, Asgar also got ready to go with the prosecutrix. 3. Ultimately, the prosecutrix and her brother accompanied with accused persons in the said vehicle. Accused Suman alighted from the vehicle at Thathal whereas accused Chanchla took the prosecutrix and her brother with her to Amb. Leaving the vehicle, Parminder and brother of the prosecutrix there, accused Satinder Singh and Chanchla took the prosecutrix on a motorcycle to Jawalaji where one Sanju was already standing at the Adda. He arranged an Auto Rickshaw wherein the prosecutrix and Chanchla travelled for a distance of about 15 kms. and then after covering some distance on foot they reached in a house. Said Sanju broke the lock of one room and they entered the said room alongwith Satinder was following them on the motorcycle. The said house according to Sanju belonged to his sister. In the said house during night initially accused Satinder Singh raped the prosecutrix thrice and then accused Sanju also committed rape on her. Said Sanju broke the lock of one room and they entered the said room alongwith Satinder was following them on the motorcycle. The said house according to Sanju belonged to his sister. In the said house during night initially accused Satinder Singh raped the prosecutrix thrice and then accused Sanju also committed rape on her. On 21.7.2004 the prosecutrix and Rockey on a motorcycle and accused Chanchla and Sanju in a Bus returned to Jawalaji from where accused Satinder Singh went away on his motorcycle and the prosecutrix, Sanju and accused Chanchla went to Dhalyara by a bus. At Dhalyara accued Chanchla contacted someone on a telephone and informed the prosecutrix that a Police Officer of Nadaun had been called by her to Kinnu where she would speak to him about the case of her mother. Thereafter the prosecutrix and accused Chanchla went to Kinnu by a Bus. At Kinnu one Scooterist appeared on the scene and accused Chanchla informed the prosecutrix that he was the concerned Police Officer. On his scooter all the three travelled to a distance of about 2 or 3 kms. where they took meals at a Dhaba. Thereafter, they went to Hotel Kailash Parvat. There the prosecutrix was subjected to rape by the alleged Police Officer. Accused Chanchla recommended the case of the mother of the prosecutrix to that person and thereafter he went away. 4. The prosecutrix was then taken by accused Chanchla to her house in Norian where during night the prosecutrix was made to change her clothes and on the next day, i.e. 22.7.2004, she was removed to Amb where she was told that telephonic recommendations were to be got made from the Ranger. The prosecutrix was then taken to a house close to Amb Chowk where accused Suman, was also present. Accused Chanchla spoke to the Ranger about the case of the mother of the prosecutrix and he telephonically conveyed to someone to take care of the case of the mother of the prosecutrix. Thereafter the accused left the room and the said Ranger then committed rape on the prosecutrix. Thereafter accused Chanchla and Suman took the prosecutrix to the Bus Adda where Parminder and brother of the prosecutrix met them. Accused Chanchla and Suman left for their houses and the prosecutrix along with her brother came to Kuthiari with a view to return to home. Thereafter accused Chanchla and Suman took the prosecutrix to the Bus Adda where Parminder and brother of the prosecutrix met them. Accused Chanchla and Suman left for their houses and the prosecutrix along with her brother came to Kuthiari with a view to return to home. At Kuthiari Kewal Krishan Fauzi met them who started quarreling with the prosecutrix and ultimately took the prosecutrix and her brother on his motorcycle towards Amb. On the way Narender Kumar and Parvinder Singh followed the motorcycle and finally stopped the motorcycle in which accused Kewal Krishan Fauzi was carrying the prosecutrix and her brother. Finally Parminder Singh and Narender Kumar took over the charge of the prosecutrix and her brother and took them in their vehicle to Amb. Brother of the prosecutrix was dropped at petrol pump Dhaba and the prosecutrix was taken away by them with the assurance to drop her in the house of sister-in-law of Parminder Singh. However, they finally removed the prosecutrix to secluded jungle by the side of a link road. By that time it was dark. During the course of the night Parminder Singh and Narender Singh each subjected the prosecutrix to rape thrice and in the morning they brought her back to Dhaba at Amb where brother of the prosecutrix was- dropped. Then the prosecutrix and her brother were given Rs.20/- and were sent to their house. When the prosecutrix and her brother were coming home on foot Kewal Krishan Fauzi met them at Andora village while travelling in Tempo and was accompanied by Mintu, Ashok and Kapih Accased Kewal Krishan alighted from the Tempo, slapped the prosecutrix and made her and her brother to sit in the Tempo and took them towards Amb to identify the two persons who had quarreled with him on the previous day. On reaching Amb a companion of Kewal Krishan Fauzi searched out for accused Parminer and his companion and Kewal Krishan Fauzi took the tempo towards Mubarkpur and then drove further to Chohal Hotel Dam via Daulatpur and Hoshiarpur where the prosecutrix was detained by him till 23rd of July, 2004 and was repeatedly raped. When driver Minut informed Kewal Krishan Fauzi that the matter is taking serious turn, the latter despatched the prosecutrix to her house threatening that she would not reveal anything to anybody failing which he would do away with her entire family. When driver Minut informed Kewal Krishan Fauzi that the matter is taking serious turn, the latter despatched the prosecutrix to her house threatening that she would not reveal anything to anybody failing which he would do away with her entire family. After reaching her home the prosecutrix reported the matter to the police and the investigation followed. As a result, the accused and their co-accused, other than Sanjay Kumar, were arrested except Rajnesh Bansal who has been admitted to bail and are presently confined in judicial custody. 5. Accused Suman has preferred Cr. M.P. (M) No. 1004 of 2004 and accused Chanchla Devi has preferred Cr. M.P. (M) No. 1004 of 2004 for bait on the grounds that the case against them has been registered by persons inimical towards them with a view to harass them whereas- they ate innocent, It is also claimed that they have young children to look after who in their absence are facing hardship. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the accused and the learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State and have also gone through the investigation records. 7. A perusal of the investigation record prima facie reveals the involvement of the accused persons in the commission of the offences alleged to have been committed by them. It is prima facie, made out from the material collected by the Investigating Agency that the accused persons one of whom is related to the prosecutrix removed the prosecutrix from her mothers house on the pretext to take the prosecutrix with her whereas the accused persons had different intentions which are manifest because of their subsequent acts, It was because of their acts that the prosecutrix was repeatedly raped by different co-accused in the case. They are shown to have actively added the commission of the offence of rape on the prosecutrix by diffident persons. Had the accused persons not fraudulently removed the prosecutrix from the house of her mother and then taken her to different places where the prosecutrix was raped the crime would not have been committed. The record thus reveals that accused persons are primarily responsible not only for the offence of removing the prosecutrix from her mothers house by deceitful means that are also responsible for the commission of the offences of rape by different persons to whom one or the other of them took the prosecutrix. The record thus reveals that accused persons are primarily responsible not only for the offence of removing the prosecutrix from her mothers house by deceitful means that are also responsible for the commission of the offences of rape by different persons to whom one or the other of them took the prosecutrix. Thus, in my view, their act and conduct in the commission of the crime is more heinous than that of the rapists. Therefore, the grave and heinous nature of the offences committed by the accused persons and the severity of punishment therefor are the factors which must weigh against the grant of bail to them. 8. In view of their acts and conduct in the commission of the offences, and particularly the ongoing unlawful efforts to get two of the co-accused in the case exculpated by using the prosecutrix and her mother as means to do so as noticed in Cr. M.P. (M) No. 926 of 2004 it can be safely assumed that in the event of their release on bail the accused persons are likely to tamper with the prosecution evidence. 9. It is not the case of the accused persons that apart from their minor children, who are admittedly aged more than 10 years, there is no other family member to look after them. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the accused persons that in the interest of such children accused persons be released on bail is not tenable. 10. In view of the above conclusions, the accused persons are not entitled to be released on bail. 12. As a result, both these petitions merits dismissal and are accordingly dismissed.