Please Log in / Register to access the full text of this judgment and the entire database
(2022) Law Today Live Doc. Id. 16695
CRA-S-1382 of 2021
Decided on: 22.04.2022
Present:
Ms.Sharmila Sharma, Advocate, for the applicant/appellant.
Ms.Sheenu Sura, DAG, Haryana.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), Section 376 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 389 -- Conviction in rape case – Suspension of sentence during pendency of appeal – Bare perusal of the case of the prosecution reveals a consensual relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix/ an adult lady aged 35 years having two children and she entered into the relationship with the applicant with her eyes open; only if such relationship could not result in a logical end she cannot be allowed to come and allege rape by the applicant; there was no medical evidence, such an eventuality arose on account of refusal by the prosecutrix to undergo a medical examination; no private witness was examined by the prosecution; only after the applicant got married did the prosecutrix allege that the relationship between them was without her consent showing falsity in her claim; the applicant has undergone over ten months of custody; during the course of his trial he was on bail which concession he did not misuse and that the appeal filed by the applicant, which has been admitted for regular hearing, is not likely to be heard in the near future – Considering totality of facts, sentence of the applicant ordered to be suspended.
(Para 2-4)
***
1. This is the second application filed by the applicant for suspension of his awarded sentence.
2. Seeking suspension of the awarded sentence of the applicant, learned counsel submits that the Trial Court has erred in convicting the applicant; a bare perusal of the case of the prosecution reveals a consensual relationship between the applicant and the prosecutrix; the prosecutrix was an adult lady aged 35 years having two children and she entered into the relationship with the applicant with her eyes open; only if such relationship could not result in a logical end she cannot be allowed to come and allege rape by the applicant; there was no medical evidence on the record to support the case of the prosecution and such an eventuality arose on account of refusal by the prosecutrix to undergo a medical examination; no private witness was examined by the prosecution; only after the applicant got married did the prosecutrix allege that the relationship between them was without her consent showing falsity in her claim; the applicant has undergone over ten months of custody; during the course of his trial he was on bail which concession he did not misuse and that the appeal filed by the applicant, which has been admitted for regular hearing, is not likely to be heard in the near future.
3. Learned State counsel opposes the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that he has committed a heinous offence of rape.
4. After considering the totality of the above facts, the sentence of the applicant is ordered to be suspended. Resultantly, he is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing appropriate bail bonds to the satisfaction of the CJM/Duty Magistrate, Jhajjar.
Petition allowed.
********