Unusual For A Woman To Present A False Story Of Sexual Assault So As To Implicate An Innocent Person: Allahabad High Court
Refusing to grant bail to a man accused of raping a 17-year-old girl, the Allahabad High Court on Tuesday said it would be unusual for a woman to come up with a false story of being a victim of sexual assault so as to implicate an innocent person. The bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh added that in our country, a woman, a victim of sexual aggression, would rather suffer silently than...
Refusing to grant bail to a man accused of raping a 17-year-old girl, the Allahabad High Court on Tuesday said it would be unusual for a woman to come up with a false story of being a victim of sexual assault so as to implicate an innocent person.
The bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Singh added that in our country, a woman, a victim of sexual aggression, would rather suffer silently than implicate somebody falsely. Hence, until she is a victim of a sex crime, she would not blame anyone but the real culprit.
These observations were made by the Court while refusing to grant bail to one Asharam in view of the submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, the gravity of offence, the role assigned to the applicant and the severity of punishment.
The case in brief
Essentially, it is the prosecution's case that the accused, on August 22, 2022, forcibly took the minor girl to a deserted place wherein he forcibly made physical relations with her and thereafter, on the next day, he left her on the outskirts of her village after threatening her with dire consequences in case she reported the matter to the police.
The FIR in the case was lodged on August 31, 2022, after the intervention of the Superintendent of Police, (Public Grievance Cell), Sambhal, under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506 IPC and 3/4 of the POCSO Act, following which, the accused was arrested.
Now, the Accused moved to the HC seeking bail on the ground that in her statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, the victim had only stated that the applicant-accused has committed a misdeed with her and that she had not specifically alleged that any penetration had taken place and hence, the act allegedly committed against the victim does not come with the purview of Section 375(c).
Referring to the medical examination report of the victim, it was further argued that there was no injury on the private part of the victim and in the supplementary report too, no spermatozoa was found and the doctor was of the opinion that no positive opinion can be given about sexual abuse.
On the other hand, the Counsel for the state submitted that as per the allegations made by the victim in her statement under Section 164 CrPC, an offence under Section 376 was made out against the applicant and considering the gravity of the offence, the bail application of the applicant is liable to be rejected.
Court's observations
At the outset, the Court perused the statements of the Vicitm recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of CrPC to note that the contention of the counsel of the accused that there was no penetration was totally misconceived. The Court noted that it was the specific allegations of the victim that the applicant forcibly took her to a deserted place, kept her in a room throughout the night and committed rape on her.
"...the victim was in confinement of the applicant for about one and a half day and there was specific allegations that he committed misdeed with her and on query by the investigating officer, she has explained that the applicant first took off her Paijami and thereafter disrobed himself and lie down upon her. It is not the case of the applicant-accused that after he was trying to commit rape, someone has intervened or came to the place to save the victim as a result thereof he could not complete the act," the Court observed.
Further, regarding the extent of penetration, the Court noted that the expression ‘penetration’ under Section 375 IPC denotes the ingress of male organs into the female parts, however, slight it may be. The Court also said that the Supreme Court has held in many cases that even the slightest penetration of male organs into the female parts amounts to rape.
In this regard, the Court also referred to Meghalaya High Court's judgment in the case of Cheerfulson Snaitang v. State of Meghalaya 2022 LiveLaw (Meg) 6 wherein it was held that rubbing male organ on the vagina or urethra of prosecutrix despite she wearing her underpants, would still amount to penetration for the purpose of Section 375(b), IPC.
So far as the last contention of the counsel for the accused-applicant that the medical examination of the applicant was not conducted as per Section 53A CrPC, was concerned, the Court noted that since the accused was arrested after fifteen days of the incident, therefore, the investigating officer was justified in thinking it unnecessary to get him examined.
Against this backdrop, while refusing to grant bail to the accused, the Court made the following observation:
"The Court must keep in mind while appreciating the evidence of the prosecutrix the values prevailing in the country, particularly in rural India. It would be unusual for a woman to come up with a false story of being a victim of sexual assault so as to implicate an innocent person. In our country, a woman, victim of sexual aggression, would rather suffer silently than to falsely implicate somebody. Any statement of a rape victim is an extremely humiliating experience for a woman and until she is a victim of sex crime, she would not blame anyone but the real culprit."
Appearances
Counsel for Applicant: Shyam Lal, Abhilasha Singh, Ashutosh Yadav
Counsel for Opposite Party: G.A., Kanak Kumar Tripathi
Case title - Asharam vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 173 [CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 57301 of 2022]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 173
Click Here To Read/Download Order