REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 107 OF 2006
AMAR BAHADUR SINGH
.. APPELLANT(S)
vs.
STATE OF U.P.
.. RESPONDENT(S)
O
RDER
The respondents have been served but they are not
represented before us.
As per the prosecution story on the 2nd April, 1989
at about 11.45 p.m. the prosecutrix, the daughter in law of
Santu, was sleeping in her in laws' house along with her
daughter and other family members. Her husband was however
away to the Punjab in connection with his employment. On an
alarm raised by the prosecutrix all those at home woke up
and saw that the appellant was committing rape on the
prosecutrix. The appellant was accordingly apprehended on
the spot with the help of a police party which was passing
close by. It was also noticed that the prosecutrix was
bleeding from her private parts. The appellant was
accordingly brought to the police station where a report
was lodged and a case under Section 376 of the IPC was
registered.
The Trial Court relying on the evidence of PW.1 the
prosecutrix, PW.2 Santu, her father-in-law, and PW.6, her
sister-in-law, held that the case against the accused was
made out and accordingly sentenced him to undergo R.I. for
seven years. The matter was thereafter taken in appeal to
the High Court and the High Court while observing that the
facts of the case indicated that the prosecutrix was a
consenting party thought that in the circumstance it was a
fit case where the sentence ought to be reduced from seven
to five years. The appeal was nevertheless dismissed with
the reduction in the quantum of sentence. This appeal by
way of special leave is now before us.
We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
He has raised only one argument before us. He has pointed
out that the prosecutrix was 26 years of age as on the date
of the incident and was the mother of seven children and
the very fact that the rape had been allegedly committed in
her house not only in the presence of her children and
other family members, the story itself appeared to be
unacceptable. It has also been highlighted that in the
background of the fact that the High Court had observed
that the prosecutrix was a consenting party the accused
ought to have been acquitted on that basis alone.
We find merit in this plea. We find that under the
circumstance the possibility that rape could have been
committed on her in the presence of so many members in a
small house is difficult to believe. On the contrary the
findings of the High Court that the prosecutrix was a
consenting party appear to be correct and it was perhaps
when the accused and the prosecutrix had been caught red-
handed that the story of rape had been cooked up, to
salvage some of the family honour. This is often the
tendency in such matters. The High Court has therefore gone
completely wrong in dismissing the appeal even after its
categoric observations. We accordingly allow the appeal,
set aside the conviction of the appellant and order his
acquittal. The appellant is on bail; his bail bonds are
discharged.
.................J.
(HARJIT SINGH BEDI)
....................J.
(CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD)
New Delhi,
January 25, 2011.