Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3752 (ALL)

Sarvottam Chaubey v. State of U. P.

2016-11-18

KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE

body2016
JUDGMENT Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J. – This application has been filed seeking the release of the appellant on bail after conviction and sentence in S.T. /Spl. Trial No.18 of 2015 arising out of Case Crime No.275 of 2014 u/s 376D IPC and 4 POSCO Act P.S. Bansdih District Ballia. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. 3. Perused the record. 4. Submission of counsel for the appellant is that the medical report does not show any marks of violence so it does not corroborate the ocular version of the victim which discredits her testimony and therefore, the conviction based on the same should be held untenable. Further submission is that DNA report could not be obtained in this regard which also goes against the prosecution. It has also been pointed out that the appellant is in jail since 23.5.2015. It has been further submitted that actually some money was due to be paid by the family of the victim towards the appellant and simply to get rid of the payment he has been falsely implicated in this case and therefore,the appellant should be released on bail. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and submitted that this is a case in which at the time of the incident the victim girl Pinky was in the hospital in connection with the treatment of her mother who was admitted there in the hospital and was undergoing treatment. At that time her father had gone out to arrange the money. During the same period of time the appellant along with another co-accused Shivam Pandey who was also employed in the same hospital were both present in the hospital. A little before the time of incident appellant Sarvottam Chaube came over to the girl and told her that the Doctor was calling her on the third floor. Victim's cousin brother had also gone out from the hospital at that time. Believing in what the appellant said, the victim went up stairs along with the appellant. In the way she found another co-accused Shivam Pandey who also accompanied her. After reaching the higher floor upstairs she found one more miscreant present there from before who was introduced by the appellant and the other co-accused Shivam Pandey as the Doctor and it was said that he will give her medicine. But it was all a deceitful trap. In the way she found another co-accused Shivam Pandey who also accompanied her. After reaching the higher floor upstairs she found one more miscreant present there from before who was introduced by the appellant and the other co-accused Shivam Pandey as the Doctor and it was said that he will give her medicine. But it was all a deceitful trap. The aforesaid third person instead of giving any medicine started misbehaving and making indecent overtures. Soon thereafter the hell broke loose and at the point of knife repeated rapes were committed upon the victim by them. The appellant was also one of the three accused persons who committed rape on her in that fateful night. Somehow after the commission of this gang rape the victim girl somehow managed to came down and also happened to meet her cousin brother who had just returned by that time and she narrated the entire woeful occurrence to him. The incident was also shared with the mother and then conveyed to the father who had gone out and was not present in the hospital at that time. A.G.A. has tried to emphasize the conspicuous nature of facts of the case submitting that the mother of the victim was admitted in the hospital and the victim being the attending daughter was present in the hospital at that time and the appellant was none else than an employee of the hospital itself. Ordinarily when people get admitted in the hospital they have full faith in its administration and on the doctors and nobody can think in terms of apprehending any danger to his security and safety within the premises of the hospital. If the employee of the hospital itself committed the breach of that faith and went to the extent of ravishing the patient or her attendant it becomes an egregious crime. The argument raised by the counsel about the absence of the injuries on the body of the victim has absolutely no significance because there is evidence to the effect that three accused miscreants including the applicant kept and held the victim at the point of knife pinning her down. In such a situation it is not difficult to understand the psychology and the state of terrible fear of the victim. In such a situation it is not difficult to understand the psychology and the state of terrible fear of the victim. Ordinarily in such a situation the girls cringe and cower and undergo complete nervous break down and it is not reasonable to expect that she should have been fighting and resisting fearlessly in such a situation when she was already under the threat of life with a dagger on her chest. Therefore, in such a situation injuries as the marks of resistance should not be expected to be found. There is nothing incredible about the same. In fact the attention was drawn to the medical examination report of the victim in which the version that was given by the victim to the doctor has also been noted. It is very relevant to note that same incriminating version against the applicant and other co-accused was given even at that stage which lends complete clinching corroboration to her oral version given in court. It is highly unreasonable for the defence to suggest in the facts and circumstances of the case that just in order to obviate some alleged loan or payment the victim herself or her father and her family members would be putting at peril the dignity and honour of the girl and the parents will push her to live a life of scandalized infamy for all times to come. It is so known in our society that the victims of such crimes get a perennial stigma attached against their names and they irredeemably suffer the enormous defamatory social consequences. It is a kind of social death which follows the victim as a trail. So far as the period of detention is concerned, in a crime of this nature where the victim girl was the daughter of the admitted patient and was gang raped in the hospital by the employees of the hospital itself, the period of detention can simply not constitute any legitimate ground to release appellant on bail. 6. Looking to the nature of offence, its gravity and the evidence in support of it and the overall circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that the appellant does not make out a case for bail. Therefore, the prayer for bail of the applicant is rejected.