Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1275 (RAJ)

Ramrup Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan

2019-04-30

SABINA

body2019
JUDGMENT : SABINA, J. Appellant has filed this appeal under Section 14-A of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 seeking regular bail in F.I.R. No. 38/2018 registered at Police Station Gadhmora, for offence under Sections 363, 366, 376-D of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 3(2)(va) of The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 5/6, 17 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is in custody since 09.07.2018. Prosecutrix is a major. Appellant had moved an application before the trial court that he should be got identified from the prosecutrix before her statement was recorded, during trial. However, the said application was dismissed by the trial court. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shri Ram v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, (1975) 3 SCC 495 : AIR 1975 Supreme Court 175, wherein, it was held as under:— “Shri Ram, along with Ram Chandra, had moved an application before the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) who was conducting the committal proceedings that he was not known to the witnesses and therefore he should be put up for being identified in an identification parade. The Public Prosecutor objected to that request. The learned Magistrate upheld the objection and refused to direct that a parade be held. The circumstance that Shri Ram had voluntarily accepted the risk of being identified, in a parade-but was denied that opportunity was an important point in his favour. The High Court rejected it as inconsequential by observing that the oral testimony of witnesses, even if not tested by holding an identification parade, can be made the basis of conviction if the request made by the accused is groundless and the witnesses knew the accused prior to the occurrence. It is correct to say that no rule of law requires that the oral testimony of a witness should be corroborated by evidence of identification. In fact, evidence of identification is itself a weak type of evidence. It is correct to say that no rule of law requires that the oral testimony of a witness should be corroborated by evidence of identification. In fact, evidence of identification is itself a weak type of evidence. But the point of the matter is that the court which acquitted Shri Ram was justifiably influenced by the consideration that though at the earliest stage he had asked that an identification parade be held, the demand was opposed by the prosecution and the parade was therefore not held” 3. Learned counsel has next placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Darga v. State of Rajasthan Cr. L.R., (Raj.) 1983, wherein, it was held as under :— “The aforesaid decision thus show that a prayer for test identification cannot be refused merely on the ground that it was not submitted during the course of investigation and that it was submitted after the filing of the charge sheet. In the present case it is difficult to understand how the prosecution would be prejudiced by the delay in the filing of the application by the petitioners because the trial before the Additional Sessions Judge is only at the initial stages. The said delay might operate to the prejudice of the petitioners in the sense that during the intervening period the petitioners might have been seen by the witnesses but if the petitioners do not mind this delay and wish to take the risk of having a test identification there should be no reason why the said request of the petitioners should not be allowed. The first objection raised by the learned counsel for the complainants and the learned Public Prosecutor against passing an order for holding a test identification cannot, therefore, be sustained.” 4. Learned State counsel has opposed the appeal. 5. As per the prosecution story, appellant and his co-accused have raped the prosecutrix. Prosecutrix, while appearing in the witness box has duly supported the prosecution case with regard to the involvement of the appellant in the crime. 6. Keeping in view the seriousness of allegations levelled against the appellant, no ground for grant of bail to him is made out. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant fail to advance the case of the appellant. Dismissed.