The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court said that the victim is the person who comes before the Court and during trial if she denies the allegation of rape and becomes hostile, there is no justification to keep the amount of compensation provided by the State Government.
The Single-Judge Bench of Justice Brij Raj Singh, while hearing a Criminal Misc Bail Application filed by Jeetan Lodh Alias Jitendra, directed the State Government to pass appropriate orders and issue necessary directions to the authorities concerned to recover the amount of compensation if paid, in the cases, where the victim has become hostile during trial and not supported the prosecution.
Let the necessary exercise be done within a period of three months, ruled the High Court.
The bail application has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to enlarge him on bail in Case under Section 376, 452, 506 IPC and Section 3/4 of POCSO Act, PS Gangaghat District Unnao.
Counsel for the applicant has submitted that prosecutrix has not supported the prosecution case in cross- examination. She has deposed before the Court that she could not identify the person who committed rape against her.
She has further stated that she had not seen the face of the person who committed rape. She has further stated that there is no enmity between her family and the applicant.
It has been submitted that prosecutrix has totally denied version of FIR as well as the version of 164 CrPC before the Court. Once she has denied the version under Section 164 CrPC and the FIR, at the moment the applicant may not be held guilty and he is liable to be granted bail.
He has further submitted that the brother who is complainant has also not supported the prosecution case. The brother has stated that some other person had written FIR and he cannot read Hindi language, therefore, he could not come to know how the FIR was lodged.
He has submitted that the applicant has no criminal history and he is in Jail since 20.5.2022.
On the other hand, Arvind Mishra counsel for the complainant and Rajesh Kumar Singh AGA-I have opposed the bail and submitted that version of FIR and statement under Section 164 CrPC are intact and in examination-in-chief, the prosecutrix reiterated the version of FIR as well as statement under Section 164 CrPC, therefore, the bail prayer be rejected.
“Considering the over all facts and circumstances of the case, particular the cross-examination version of the prosecutrix, who deposed before the Court that she could not identify the person who committed rape against her and the version of the brother who is complainant, who has also not supported the prosecution case, it is a fit case for bail”, the Court observed.
The Court ordered that,
Let the applicant Jeetan Lodh @ Jitendra be released on bail in the above case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.
(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
The Court noted that,
Before parting with the case, Rajesh Kumar Singh AGA- I for State has pointed out that in rape cases as well as sexual offence against minor, the victim and her family is provided financial assistance.
He has submitted that in the case, the prosecutrix has become hostile and she has denied the allegation of rape against the applicant. Thus, the compensation amount if any, paid to the victim or her family should be recovered back.
It has further been submitted by the AGA that in compliance of the aforesaid Act and Rules, various Government orders have been issued by the State Government of U.P i.e, on 9.4.2014, 7.6.2016 and 14.6.2016. The last Government order for paying compensation is issued by the State Government of U.P on 14.6.2016. The Government order dated 14.6.2016 has been passed whereby the earlier Government order dated 9.4.2014 has been amended for providing compensation to the victim of the categories mentioned in the Government order dated 7.6.2016.
“Now, the question has cropped up before me as to whether, the prosetrix who has become hostile is entitled to retain the amount of compensation. In my opinion, if the victim has become hostile and does not support the prosecution case at all, it is appropriate to recover the amount if paid to the victim. The victim is the person who comes before the Court and during trial if she denies the allegation of rape and becomes hostile, there is no justification to keep the amount of compensation provided by the State Government. The State Exchequer cannot be burdened like this and there is all possibility of misuse of the laws. Therefore, in my opinion, the amount of compensation given to the victim or the family member, is liable to be recovered by the authorities concerned who have paid the compensation”, the Court further observed.
“Therefore, considering the above aspect of the matter, it is directed that the State Government will pass appropriate orders and issue necessary directions to the authorities concerned to recover the amount of compensation if paid, in the cases, where the victim has become hostile during trial and not supported the prosecution. Let necessary exercise be done within a period of three months.
The Senior Registrar of the Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary of Government of Uttar Pradesh for necessary compliance”, the order reads.