Few Discrepancies In FIR Compared To Victim’s Statement Recorded U/S. 164 CrPC Not Good Ground To Grant Bail In Rape Case: SC
The Supreme Court observed that few discrepancies in FIR compared to victim’s statement is not a good ground to exercise discretion in favour of accused in serious offence like rape.
The appeal before the Apex Court arose from the impugned order of the Rajasthan High Court in a Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application pertaining to a rape case by which the bail application filed by the Respondent No.2 (original accused) came to be allowed and he was ordered to be released on bail pending trial.
The Division Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan said, “We wonder if the High Court was made aware of the fact that the victim and her mother as well as both the accused are residing in the very same village viz. Magriyan Ki Dhani Satyaya, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.”
AOR Shantanu Sagar represented the Petitioner while AOR S. Udaya Kumar Sagar represented the Respondent.
The FIR, in this case, came to be lodged by the petitioner in the year 2023 against the Respondent No.2 and a co-accused for the offence punishable under Section 376D and Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code. When the bail matter reached the High Court, the Court noted the discrepancies emanating between the FIR and the statement of the victim recorded under Section 164 of the CrPC. The High Court was persuaded to release the Respondent No.2 on bail.
The Bench at the outset observed that ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity, etc., once the trial commences and the prosecution starts examining its witnesses, the Court be it the Trial Court or the High Court should be loath in entertaining the bail application of the accused.
The Bench also stated that in such cases either bail is granted after the charge is framed and just before the victim is to be examined by the prosecution before the trial court, or bail is granted once the recording of the oral evidence of the victim is complete by looking into some discrepancies here or there in the deposition and thereby testing the credibility of the victim.
“In the case on hand, the victim is yet to be examined. Her mother who, according to the case of the prosecution, is an eye-witness has also not been examined so far. The High Court seems to have looked into few discrepancies in the FIR compared to the statement of victim recorded under Section 164 of the Code. This could not have been a good ground to exercise discretion in favour of an accused in a serious offence like rape”, it said.
Considering the current stage of the case, the Bench wasn’t inclined towards disturbing the impugned order passed by the High Court.
Thus, the Bench ordered, “...we direct that the Respondent No.2 – herein shall not enter the said village till the completion of the trial. As we have asked the respondent No.2 – accused not to enter the village, he shall furnish address of his new residence to the investigating officer attached with the concerned police station. The Respondent No.2 shall not try to influence any of the prosecution witnesses in any manner or directly or indirectly try to contact the victim and her family.”
The Bench concluded the matter by further observing, “...it will be in the fitness of things if the Trial Court gives some priority to the Sessions Case No.53/2023 and try to dispose it of within a period of three months from today.”
Cause Title: X v. State Of Rajasthan & Anr. [Neutral Citation- 2024 INSC 909]
Appearance:
Petitioner: AOR Shantanu Sagar
Respondent: AOR S. Udaya Kumar Sagar