HC grants bail to gang rape accused

(MENAFN – Kashmir Observer) Srinagar – The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court in Jammu on Monday granted bail to two men accused of gang-raping their brother’s wife. The court concluded that there appeared to be “a clear tendency on the part of the woman to make allegations that she had implicated her in-laws in heinous crimes in order to settle the scores for her troubled marital life.”

“The manner in which respondent No. 2 (the woman) improvised at every stage brings the gang rape charge case against the plaintiffs into the realm of suspicion,” a single bench bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar said.

ADVERTISING

The woman got married in October 2020 according to Muslim rites and rituals. A year later, she lodged a complaint with the Inspector General of Police (IGP) in Jammu, alleging that her father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law tortured, abused and harassed her on the next day of her wedding because she did not bring enough dowry .

The original FIR was registered under Sections 354/342, 498, 498-A, 504/506 of the IPC. Subsequently, offenses under Section 376, 376-D of IPC were added based on the statement of the woman recorded under Section 164 of CrPC. She claimed her husband’s real brother and a cousin raped her twice.

The defendants approached the Supreme Court seeking relief in the matter, which referred them to the appropriate court. In March this year, Jammu Sessions Judge (Special Judge for POCSO cases in the Fast Track Court) refused to grant regular bail to the accused brothers-in-law. Therefore, they have filed an application in the Supreme Court under Section 439 CrPC seeking the compensation.

Also read Srinagar records over 450 kidnapping and rape cases since 2019. Man arrested for raping minor niece in Jammu

The Supreme Court observed that there was no mention of the alleged incidents of rape and gang rape by the two men in the woman’s written complaint to the IGP, Jammu, which formed the basis of the FIR in the case.

Rather, the woman accused her brothers-in-law of rape for the first time in her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC without explaining why she did not mention these incidents in her written complaint to the IGP, the court observed.

It further highlighted that the woman herself had not stated the exact date, time and place of the alleged rape incidents in her statement under Section 164 CrPC.

Further, the court highlighted that the woman had even alleged rape by her father-in-law in a petition under the Domestic Violence Act, a fact which she neither stated in her complaint to IGP, Jammu nor stated in her statement under Section 164 had by CrPC in the present matter.

Although the court agreed with the woman’s lawyer’s argument that “FIR is not an encyclopedia which must disclose all the facts and details relating to the crime reported”, it held that “the distinction has to be made when the first informant is himself.” “or make yourself a victim”.

“It is equally important to keep in mind the difference between elaboration and improvisation. “While elaboration of what was stated by the first informant at the time of recording his statement in the FIR is permissible, the same is not true of improvisations which have the effect of creating a new offense against the person accused in the FIR,” said the high court.

It concluded that in the present case there was no prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the plaintiffs had committed the offense of gang rape.

Given the documents showing that the defendants had cooperated with the police and the lack of evidence that they could influence the investigation if released on bail, the court accepted their request and granted them bail Deposit. (with contributions from Lawbeat)

Follow this link to join our WhatsApp group : Join now