AMAR BAHADUR SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P.

                     [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 ELLATE 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         A
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.
       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
  allow the appeal, set aside the conviction of the appellant and 0
  order his acquittal. The appellant is on bail; his bail bonds are
  discharged.
                                            •
D.G.                                             Appeal allowed.