AMAR BAHADUR SINGH v. STATE OF U.P.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Harjit Singh Bedi
Chandramauli Kr. Prasad
Judgment Date: 2011-01-25
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed. Conviction set aside. The appellant is acquitted. Bail bonds discharged.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; acquittal of the appellant; bail bonds discharged.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Amar Bahadur Singh

Respondents

State of U.P.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Praveen Chaturvedi

Case Synopsis & Summary

Amar Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P., a Criminal Appeal (No. 107 of 2006) decided by a Division Bench of Justices Harjit Singh Bedi and Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, on January 25, 2011, revisits the conviction under Section 376 IPC for rape. The trial court convicted the appellant of raping the prosecutrix, who was 26 years old, the mother of seven, in her in-laws’ home while family members were present. The High Court reduced the sentence from seven to five years on the basis that the prosecutrix was a consenting party. The Supreme Court, while hearing the appeal, observed that the prosecution story placed the rape in a small house with many people, making the “rape” scenario difficult to credit; the judges agreed with the High Court’s conclusion that the prosecutrix had likely consented. They noted the possibility that the story of rape had been invented to salvage family honor after the accused and prosecutrix were caught in compromising circumstances. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s categoric observations were not erroneous but that the overall finding of the presence of consent and a cooking up of the rape tale warranted acquittal. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the conviction set aside, and the appellant acquitted; bail bonds were discharged.

Provisions of Law Cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 376

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecutrix was 26 years old and the mother of seven children, and the alleged rape occurred inside her in-laws’ house in the presence of many family members. He contended that such a scenario was highly improbable and unsupported by the evidence. The High Court’s observation that the prosecutrix was a consenting party should have led to acquittal, as the prosecution story appeared misaligned with the circumstances and could have been manufactured to salvage family honour after the accused and prosecutrix were caught in compromising circumstances. In sum, the defence urged that the conviction could not be maintained in light of the improbability of rape in the given setting and the absence of credible corroboration. The appellant sought reversal of the conviction and acquittal. It stressed that the prosecution failed to dispel the presumption of consent with independent corroboration; the presence of many witnesses in a small house does not automatically support a rape claim. The court should have given more weight to the possibility that the entire narrative was post-hoc to justify family honour. The defense asked the Court to consider the overall evidence and apply the standard of reasonable doubt, leading to acquittal.

Contentions of Respondents

Respondents did not file oral or written arguments before the Court; no counsel appeared on their behalf. The appeal was argued solely by the appellant's counsel. Consequently, the Court based its decision on the evidence and the legal framework, and concluded that the possibility of rape in the stated circumstances could not be sustained, leading to acquittal.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## [2011) 2 S.C.R. 243 # AMAR BAHADUR SINGH A _v._ STATE OF U.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 2006) JANUARY 25, 2011 8 ## [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, JJ.] _Penal_ Code, _1860: s.376- Rape -Allegation of rape on_ · _prosecutrix in her house_ - _Prosecutrix_ was _26 years of age_ C - _and mother of seven children Rape allegedly committed in_ - _the presence of her children and other family members Trial court convicted the accused u/s.376 and sentenced him to_ - _undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years High Court reduced the sentence from seven to five years observing that_ D _the facts indicated that the prosecutrix ·was_ a _consenting party_ - _On appeal, held: The possibility of commission of rape in the presence of so many members in a small house is not_ - _convincing The finding of High Court that the prosecutrix_ - _was. a consenting party appears to be correct The story of_ E _rape might have_ been _cooked up to salvage family honour when the s;;cused and the prosecutrix_ were _caught red-handed_ - - _This is often the tendency in such matters High Court went completely wrong in dismissing the appeal even after its_ - _categoric observations Conviction_ set _aside._ F CRIMINAL APP ELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 107 of 2006. · From the Judgment & Order dated 23.08.2005 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Lucknow Bench (Lucknow) in G Criminal Appeal No. 140 of 1995. Praveen Chaturvedi for the Appellant. The following order of the Court was delivered 243 H 244 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 2 S.C.R. ## A ## ORDER The respondents have been served but they are not represented before us. As per the prosecution story on the 2nd April, 1989 at B 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 C 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 D 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 E 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 ; F 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 riow before us. G 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 H only in the presence of her children and other family members, AMAR BAHADUR SINGH _v._ STATE OF U.P. 245 the story itself appeared to be unacceptable. It has also been highlighted that in the background of the fact th,at t.he High Court had observed that t.he pros~cutrix was a consenti'.ng party the accused ought - to have been acquitted on that basis alone. A . We find merit in this plea. We find that under the B _r_ 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 C 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 iq dismissing the appeal even after its categoric observations. We accordingly 0 allow the appeal, set aside the conviction of the appellant and order his acquittal. The appellant is on bail; his bail bonds are discharged. B • D.G. Appeal allowed.