- (1.) RAVINDRA Singh, J. Heard Sri Chauhan Keshwar Singh learned Counsel for the applicant, learned A. G. A. and Sri Dharmendra Kumar learned Counsel for the complainant.
(2.) THIS application is filed by the applicant Babloo with a prayer that he may be released on bail in case crime No. 123 of 2004, under Section 376 and 506 I. P. C. P. S. Paschim Shareera District Kaushambi. From the perusal of the record it reveals that the in the present case F. I. R. was lodged by Smt. Maharani Devi the mother of the prosecutrix on 1-10-2004 at 7. 00 p. m. at P. S. Civil Lines, Allahabad. Subsequently, the matter was transferred to the Police Station Paschim Shareera, District Kaushambi, where it was registered on 20-10-2004 at 1. 15 p. m. in respect of incident which had occurred on 30-9- 2004 at 8. 00 p. m. in the vicinity of village Grahi Bazar. According to F. I. R. version the daughter of the first informant prosecutrix km. Sangeeta had gone to attend the call of nature on 30-9-2004 at about 8. 00 p. m. outside the village abadi where she was over powered by the applicant and two other accused persons and she was taken away to a lonely place where they committed rape by force. The prosecutrix came to her house and disclosed the facts to her mother. The prosecutrix was raped on 13-8-2004 also by the applicant and other. In that case also the criminal proceedings were initiated. A threat was extended to the prosecutrix as no action was taken against the accused persons in respect of the alleged occurrence dated 13-8-2004, no action will be taken up against the co-accused persons in the present case also. The prosecutrix was also medically examined on 2-10-2004 at 8. 00 a. m. at District Women Hospital, Allahabad. The medical examination report of the prosecutrix shows that the hymen was torn at 4 O'clock position and bleeding was present there, and in the vagina only one finger was admitting with a difficulty. The age of the prosecutrix was about 18 years and according to opinion of the Doctor injury on the private part of the body of the prosecutrix was caused by some blunt object and no opinion about rape could be given.
(3.) IT is contended by the learned Counsel for the applicant that there is difference in the present medical examination report dated 2-10-2004 and the medical examination report dated 27-8-2004 which was done in respect of the occurrence dated 23-8-2004, because in the medical examination report dated 27-8-2004 the weight of the prosecutrix was mentioned as 20 kg and number of teeth was 15 x 15 and height of the prosecutrix was 5'-2", but in the present medical examination report dated 2-10-2004 the weight of the prosecutrix is mentioned as 34 kg and the number of teeth is mentioned as 14" x 14". The height is mentioned as 4'-8". In such circumstances no reliance can be placed on the medical examination report dated 2-10-2004. IT is further contended that the F. I. R. is delayed without any explanation and the applicant has been falsely implicated due to ill will of the first informant and there is no independent witness to support the prosecution story. It is opposed by the learned A. G. A. by submitting that the applicant and two other accused persons committed rape with the prosecutrix without her free will and consent. The prosecution story is fully corroborated by the medical evidence, because the hymen of the Prosecutrix was torn as 4 O'clock position and there was bleeding. According to opinion to the Doctor also the injury was caused by blunt object. It is further contended that contradiction in medical examination reported dated 27-8-2004 and present medical examination report dated 2-10-2004 may be due to negligence of the doctor who noted the feature of the prosecutrix and it shall be considered at the stage of the trial. The prosecution story is fully corroborated by the independent witnesses and there is no ground for falsely implication of the applicant. The prosecution story has been fully supported by the statement of the prosecutrix recorded under Sections 161 and 164 Cr. P. C.;