Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1521 (HP)

Balbir Singh v. State of H. P.

2014-10-28

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2014
JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 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. On the previous dates all the bail applicants surrendered themselves to the jurisdiction of this Court and today too they have surrendered to the jurisdiction of this Court, which comprises and constitutes =deemed custody' within the meaning and ambit of Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., so as to render the instant petitions maintainable under the aforesaid provisions of law, there being a statutory bar under The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the preferment of a petition under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. Age of the prosecutrix at the time of the occurrence, as disclosed by the Investigating Officer, was 18 ½ years, hence, she at the time of occurrence had acquired the age of consent. 4. 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. 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. 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. 5. In so far as the other co-accused Ghuman Singh and Balbir Singh are concerned, they are alleged to have outraged her modesty on 14.09.2014. The said act was purportedly carried out by the bail applicants in a jungle. The act as alleged against the aforesaid bail applicants also remained un-complained on 14.09.2014. The reticence of the victim/prosecutrix qua the said act is also enigmatic. Even though an explanation has emanated from the learned Deputy Advocate General that given the factum of hers working as a bonded labourer in the lands of bail applicant Tota Ram dissuaded her to promptly lodge the complaint. Nonetheless when for reasons attributed hereinabove while dispelling the said contention qua bail applicants Charan Singh and Prithvi Singh, it has been held to be carrying no force, as a sequel for para materia reasons the purported reticence of the victim/prosecutrix for 10 days arising from the purported dissuasive factor gains no leverage, rather boosts an inference of the FIR being tainted with the vice of concoctions and premeditations. Consequently, the allegations comprised therein are prima facie rendered at this stage to be unfounded. It is settled law that prompt lodging of the complaint to the quarters concerned has its own virtues, inasmuch as it fosters an inference of the genesis of the occurrence being ingrained with truth. Belated lodging of the complaint affects and vitiates the truth qua the genesis of the occurrence, besides a concomitant inference of the genesis of the occurrence being concocted and conjectured gains momentum. As a natural corollary when the delay is immense and remains unexplained by cogent reasons, the vitiatory factors aforesaid infect the truth qua the genesis of the occurrence. Belated lodging of the complaint affects and vitiates the truth qua the genesis of the occurrence, besides a concomitant inference of the genesis of the occurrence being concocted and conjectured gains momentum. As a natural corollary when the delay is immense and remains unexplained by cogent reasons, the vitiatory factors aforesaid infect the truth qua the genesis of the occurrence. Accordingly, the bail applications are allowed and order of 8th October, 2014 rendered in Cr.MP(M) Nos. 1159 of 2014, 1160 of 2014 and 1161 of 2014 and order of 10th October, 2014 rendered in Cr.MP(M) No.1175 of 2014 are made absolute subject to the compliance of further conditions: (i) that they shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court ; (ii) that they shall deposit their pass port, if any, with police station concerned; (iii) that they shall apply for bail afresh when the challan is filed before the trial Court and (iv) that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the bail granted to the petitioners shall be forfeited and they shall be liable to be taken into custody; However, it is made clear that the findings rendered by this Court hereinabove shall have no bearing on the merits of the case. Dasti copy.