The Allahabad High Court has rejected the bail application of one Ayub Khan alias Guddu, who is accused of raping a Dalit woman.
A single-judge bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh passed this order while hearing a Criminal Appeal filed by Ayyub Khan @ Guddu.
The criminal appeal has been filed against the order dated 01.10.2021 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Auraiya whereby the Judge rejected the bail application moved on behalf of the appellant in Bail Application arising out of Case under Sections 504, 506, 376, 328 IPC, Section 67(A) of Information and Technology Act and Section 3(2)(v), 3 (1) Da and 3 (1) Dha of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, police station Ayana, district Auraiya.
The facts of the case are that a First Information Report was lodged by the victim on 09.7.2021 for the alleged incident which took place on 23.6.2021 inter alia with the allegations that on 23.6.2021 at about 11.30 AM when she was waiting for the conveyance at the road, at that time, the appellant, a resident of the same village, was passing by on a truck. He stopped the truck and inquired from the victim as to where she was going and offered her to drop her. When the victim boarded the truck, the appellant offered her a cold drink and after consuming it, she became unconscious. Thereafter, the appellant took her to a lonely place and committed rape on her and also made her nude video. On 09.7.2021, the appellant along with co-accused also abused the victim’s husband by caste derogatory words and threatened him of dire consequences.
It is contended by the counsel for the appellant that there was inordinate delay in lodging the FIR for which no plausible explanation has been rendered by the prosecution.
It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant that in the medical examination report no sperm was found, which belied the case of the prosecution.
The counsel for the appellant also submitted that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case and that he has no concern with the alleged incident. It is also contended that the victim is engaged in extracting money from innocent persons, failing which she has falsely implicated the appellant in the case with a false and concocted story.
Lastly, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that there is no chance of the appellant fleeing from the judicial process or tampering with prosecution evidence. The appellant does not have any criminal history and is languishing in jail since 02.9.2021 and in case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the trial.
Per contra, Additional Government Advocate and Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party No 2/ first informant have opposed the prayer for bail by contending that the victim in her statement under Section 164 CrPC has fully supported the prosecution version by specifically stating that the appellant after getting her intoxicated, committed rape on her and made a video thereof. They further contended that along with the case diary, a CD of viral video of the victim is also annexed.
The Court noted,
The Supreme Court in a catena of judgement has held that mere delay in lodging the FIR is no ground to doubt the prosecution case when it is properly explained.
In Tara Singh and others Vs State of Punjab, AIR 1991 SC 63, Supreme Court held that mere delay in lodging the FIR by itself cannot give scope for an adverse inference leading to rejection of the prosecution case outright. It is well settled that the delay in giving the FIR by itself cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect these villagers to rush to the police station immediately after the occurrence.
So far as the contention of the counsel for the appellant that no spermatozoa was found in the sample of the vaginal swab, it is noted that the incident took place on 23.6.2021 whereas the medical examination of the victim was done on 10.7.2021, i.e after 17 days of the incident. The lifespan of a sperm in a woman’s body while fertile cervical fluid is present is generally three days. However, most sperm die within minutes after ejaculation inside the vagina or outside the woman’s genital tract. Once sperm enters the woman’s genital tract, the cervix and uterus, most die within 1-2 days, but some can survive up to 5 days and thus the longest that the sperm can survive in fertile cervical fluid or the uterus is five days, the Court said.
“Having heard the counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that the appellant not only committed rape upon a helpless victim, but also made video of the same and got it viral. The Court noticed that crime against women in general and rape in particular is on the increase. It is an irony that while we are celebrating women’s rights in all spheres, we show little or no concern for her honour. It is a sad reflection on the attitude of indifference of the society towards the violation of human dignity of the victims of sex crimes. We must remember that a rapist not only violates the victim’s privacy and personal integrity, but inevitably causes serious psychological as well as physical harm in the process. Rape is not merely a physical assault – it is often destructive of the whole personality of the victim. A murderer destroys the physical body of his victim, a rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the submissions advanced on behalf of parties, gravity of offence, role assigned to appellant, severity of punishment, I do not find any good ground to release the appellant on bail,” the Court observed while rejecting the bail application.
In view of the above, the order dated 01.10.2021 passed by the Special Judge (SC/ST Act), Auraiya is upheld, the Court ordered.