Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1267 (RAJ)

Bheru S/o Jorawar Singh v. State of Rajasthan

2023-07-03

KULDEEP MATHUR

body2023
JUDGMENT : KULDEEP MATHUR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 17.2.2023 passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Bhilwara in Cr. Misc. Bail Case No. 34/2023, whereby the bail application filed by the appellant, who has been arrested in connection with FIR No. 30/2023 registered at Police Station Subhashnagar, District Bhilwara, for offences under Section 376-D of IPC and Section 3(1)(w)(i), 3(2)(v) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. Drawing attention of the Court towards the statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecutrix has not levelled any allegation of she being subjected to sexual assault/rape by the present appellant. Learned counsel submitted that there are various contradictions in the contents of FIR, statement of prosecutrix recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and titamba statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. 3. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant is in judicial custody, challan has been filed and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-appellant. 4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the appeal and submitted that the appellant has been named by the prosecutrix in the FIR lodged by her immediately after the incident, at Police Station Subhashnagar, District Bhilwara. Learned Public Prosecutor further submitted that the prosecutrix in her titamba statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has maintained her stance. Learned Public Prosecutor thus prayed that the application for bail may be rejected. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record. 6. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, FIR, statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and titamba statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. in the prima-facie opinion of this Court, in cases of sexual assault/rape, statement of the prosecutrix is considered to be true and minor contradictions if any in her statement cannot be considered at the stage of bail. Only on the basis of minor contradictions, the allegation of rape cannot be brushed aside completely. 7. This Court without expressing any opinion on the merits/demerits of the appeal, is of the view that the instant appeal deserves to be rejected. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected. 9. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of the instant appeal. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same. 10. The appellant shall however be at liberty to file a fresh appeal after recording of the statement of prosecutrix before competent criminal court.