High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Munna & Others v. State Of U.P. - CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2377 of 2006  RD-AH 11260 (11 July 2006)
Hon'ble M. K. Mittal, J.
Heard Sri N. I. Jafri, learned counsel for the appellants, learned A.G.A. and perused the record.
Appellants Munna son Subrati, Munna son of Kallu and Aabad son of Abdul Khaliq have preferred this appeal against the judgement and order dated 29.3.2006 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Banda in S.T. No. 85 of 1995 whereby they have been found guilty and convicted under Sections 376 IPC and sentenced to under go rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and fine has also been imposed on them.
Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that that appellants have been convicted without there being any legal evidence against them and that they are entitled to be released on bail. He has particularly referred to the statement of the prosecutrix recorded on 20.9.2002 where she has stated that rape was committed by one of the accused Munna.
According to prosecution case, four accused including three appellants and co accused Safedar, whose case has been separated, committed gang rape on the prosecutrix.
Learned counsel for the State has contended that prosecutrix was first examined in the Court on 30.10.1996 and at that time she specifically stated that the rape was committed on her by all the four accused persons including three appellants. He has further contended that after six years she was further cross examined and it appears that under some influence she has changed her statement and that considering the statement in entirety as well as corroborative evidence, it is established that the appellants committed gang rape on the prosecutrix. The statement of the prosecutrix has to be read as a whole and part of statement cannot be separated. If the prosecutrix made some changes in her statement after a long gap of six years it does not entitle the appellants to bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case but without prejudice to the merits of the case, the appellants are not entitled to bail at this stage and their prayer for bail is liable to be rejected and is hereby rejected.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.