# Ram Ladaite @ Shaukeen v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 8 ILRA 284
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-07-29
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 13331 of 2020
- **Bench:** Samit Gopal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-ladaite-shaukeen-v-state-of-u-p-anr-46038
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Law-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Section 53-A Cr.P.C-
Examination of person accused of rape
by medical practitioner- Is of worth only
when the accused is apprehended and
medically examined immediately- The
question of examination of an accused
of rape by a medical practitioner as per
the said Section is necessary only if
there
are
reasonable
grounds
for
believing that an examination of his
person will afford evidence as to the
commission
of
an
offence.
The
immediate corroboration of the offence
through medical evidence that too by
examination of the accused is only of
any
worth
if
the
same
is
done
immediately
after
the
accused
is
apprehended and subjected to medical
examination for corroborating the same.

Medical examination of the person accused of
rape u/s 53-A of the Cr.Pc can give any resilts
only if the accused is apprehended shortly
after the commission of the offence and the
medical examination is done immediately.

Criminal Law- Indian Penal Code, 1860-
Section 375/ 376- Rape of minor -
Statement of victim corroborated by
medical/ injury report- The victim was
also assaulted by the accused persons
and had received injuries on her head
and leg which was bleeding, the same is
mentioned in the complaint. The victim
was given medical treatment for her
injuries. She has specifically stated that
she was subjected to rape by the
applicant
and
co-accused.
The
prosecution in the present case has
been consistent so far as the allegation
of rape is concerned.

Where the statement of the victim is
consistent with regard to the factum of rape
and the same is corroborated by the injuries
sustained by her in course of the commission
of the offence, then there is no ground to
doubt the version of the prosecution.

Bail Application rejected. (E-3)

## Text

284 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and the appeal is accordingly disposed
of.
----------
(2020)08ILR A284
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.07.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 13331 of 2020

Ram Ladaite @ Shaukeen ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri R.P.S. Chauhan

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

Criminal
Law-
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973- Section 53-A Cr.P.C-
Examination of person accused of rape
by medical practitioner- Is of worth only
when the accused is apprehended and
medically examined immediately- The
question of examination of an accused
of rape by a medical practitioner as per
the said Section is necessary only if
there
are
reasonable
grounds
for
believing that an examination of his
person will afford evidence as to the
commission
of
an
offence.
The
immediate corroboration of the offence
through medical evidence that too by
examination of the accused is only of
any
worth
if
the
same
is
done
immediately
after
the
accused
is
apprehended and subjected to medical
examination for corroborating the same.

Medical examination of the person accused of
rape u/s 53-A of the Cr.Pc can give any resilts
only if the accused is apprehended shortly
after the commission of the offence and the
medical examination is done immediately.

Criminal Law- Indian Penal Code, 1860-
Section 375/ 376- Rape of minor -
Statement of victim corroborated by
medical/ injury report- The victim was
also assaulted by the accused persons
and had received injuries on her head
and leg which was bleeding, the same is
mentioned in the complaint. The victim
was given medical treatment for her
injuries. She has specifically stated that
she was subjected to rape by the
applicant
and
co-accused.
The
prosecution in the present case has
been consistent so far as the allegation
of rape is concerned.

Where the statement of the victim is
consistent with regard to the factum of rape
and the same is corroborated by the injuries
sustained by her in course of the commission
of the offence, then there is no ground to
doubt the version of the prosecution.

Bail Application rejected. (E-3)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Samit Gopal, J.)

1. Heard Sri R.P.S. Chauhan, learned
counsel for the applicant and Sri Manu Raj
Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State.

2. This bail application under
Section 439 of Code of Criminal
Procedure
has
been
filed
by
the
applicant, Ram Ladaite @ Shaukeen,
seeking enlargement on bail in S.S.T. No.
1765 of 2019, arising out of Complaint
Case No. 102 of 2019, under Section
376-D Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section
6 of The Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section
3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled
Tribes
(Prevention
of
Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered at Police
Station Ujhani, District Budaun.

3. Notice was issued to the opposite
party no. 2 vide order dated 12.06.2020.
8 All. Rak Ladaite @ Shaukeen Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
285
As per office report dated 15.07.2020
placing reliance on the report of the
Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun, dated
06.07.2020 notice has been served on the
opposite party no. 2. No one appears on
behalf of the opposite party no. 2 even in
the revised list.

4. The present case arises out of an
application dated 07.05.2019 which was
filed by the opposite party no. 2 under
Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. before the
Additional District Judge- VIII, Budaun
titled (Maina Devi vs. Shaukeen and
Another), P.S. Ujhani, District Budaun
for offences under Section 452, 376-D
Indian Penal Code, 1860 & 3(2)(V) of
the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 and The Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 which
was directed to be treated as a complaint
by the concerned Court. Subsequently,
the statement under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
of the complainant, Smt. Maina Devi,
under Section 202 Cr.P.C. of the victim /
prosecutrix, Brijpal the husband of the
complainant and father of the victim was
recorded under Section 202 Cr.P.C. Vide
order dated 02.09.2019, a copy of which
is annexed as Annexure- 3 to the
affidavit, the applicant and co-accused
Ranjeet were summoned under Section
376-D I.P.C., Section 6 of The Protection
of Children from Sexual Offences Act,
2012 and Section 3(2)(V) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to
face trial.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant
argued that the occurrence in the present
matter is alleged to have taken place on
22.04.2019 for which the application
under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. which was
treated as a complaint was filed on
07.05.2019 after a delay of 15 days of the
said incident. It is argued that the delay is
fatal
to
the
prosecution
and
is
unexplained.
The
moving
of
the
application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
is an afterthought. It is further argued that
no
medical
examination
of
the
prosecutrix has been conducted which
would
corroborate
the
prosecution
version. He further argued that the
valuable right of the applicant / accused
under Section 53-A Cr.P.C. has been
violated as he has not been subjected to
any medical examination. It is further
argued that the prosecution has withheld
relevant and important piece of evidence
i.e. the public witnesses and as such the
accused is entitled to get the benefit of
Section 114(g) of Indian Evidence Act.

6. Arguing on merits of the matter,
learned counsel for the applicant has
argued that in the complaint it is
mentioned that the said incident had
taken place at around 4.00 a.m. which
has been later on shifted to 10.00 a.m. by
the
complainant
in
her
statement
recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C. It is
further
argued
that
the
victim
/
prosecutrix has not given the exact time
when the said incident has occurred. It is
then argued that the husband of the
complainant and father of the victim who
was also examined under Section 202
Cr.P.C. has given the time of occurrence
as that at about 9.00 a.m. and it is thus
argued that the prosecution has failed to
give the correct time of occurrence in the
present matter. It is further argued that
there
are
various
and
substantial
contradictions in the prosecution version
particularly relating to the location of the
house of the accused for which it is
argued that the victim has in her
286 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
statement stated that the house of the
accused is situated at some distance from
her house whereas the husband of the
complainant has stated that the house of
the accused is opposite to his house. It is
thus argued that the prosecution gets
suspicious even on the count of the fact
that the exact location of the house of the
accused where the incident is alleged to
have taken place is not fixed in the said
statements.
For
supporting
the
arguments, learned counsel has drawn the
attention of the Court to paragraph nos.
9, 16, 19, 20, 26 and 27 of the affidavit in
support of the bail application. It is
further argued that the entire prosecution
case is a lie and has been initiated just in
order to falsely implicate the applicant
without any reliable and cogent evidence.

7. Per contra, learned A.G.A
vehemently opposed the prayer for bail
and argued that the prosecutrix as per the
complaint is aged about 15 years. In the
complaint, it has been specifically
mentioned that after the said incident the
complainant along with her daughter
went to the police station and gave an
application for lodging of the FIR but
neither the police registered the FIR nor
took the daughter of the complainant for
her medical examination. There was a
delay-dally from the side of the police in
getting the medical examination done.
Then the complainant approached the
Senior Superintendent of Police, Badaun
on 24.04.2019 who in turn advised her to
approach the concerned police station on
which she again went to the police
station where the police personnels
started creating pressure on her to settle
the matter but they did not register the
case. Then subsequently, on 25.04.2019
and 27.04.2019 she again went to the
S.S.P., Badaun and gave her applications
on which the Circle Officer, P.S. Ujhani
took the statement of the girl, got a video
clip recorded and sent her to the police
station for getting the case registered but
due to some political interference her FIR
could not be registered. It is further stated
in the complaint that later on, on
29.04.2019 application through e-mail
was sent by the complainant to the I.G.,
Bareilly,
D.G.P.,
Lucknow,
Chief
Minister, Uttar Pradesh and the National
President SC / ST Commission, New
Delhi from where no response was
received and then she sent an application
on 30.04.2019 by registered post to the
S.S.P., Badaun for which there was again
no action and in the last the present
application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
dated 07.05.2019 has been moved. It is
thus argued that the delay in moving of
the application under Section 156 (3)
Cr.P.C. is well explained and the
complainant resorted to the remedy
available to her as per law. He further
argued that the applicant is named in the
complaint. There is specific allegation of
committing rape against him in the
complaint and the statements recorded
under Section 200, 202 Cr.P.C.

8.

Section
53-A
Cr.P.C.
is
reproduced herein below:-

"(1) When a person is arrested
on a charge of committing an offence of
rape or an attempt to commit rape and
there
are
reasonable
grounds
for
believing that an examination of his
person will afford evidence as to the
commission of such offence, it shall be
lawful
for
a
registered
medical
practitioner employed in a hospital run
by the Government or by a local
authority and in the absence of such a
practitioner within the radius of sixteen
8 All. Rak Ladaite @ Shaukeen Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
287
kilometers from the place where the
offence has been committed by any other
registered medical practitioner, acting at
the request of a police officer not below
the rank of a sub-inspector, and for any
person acting in good faith in his aid and
under his direction, to make such an
examination of the arrested person and
to use such force as is reasonably
necessary for that purpose.

(2) The registered medical
practitioner
conducting
such
examination
shall,
without
delay,
examine such person and prepare a
report of his examination giving the
following particulars, namely;

(i) the name and address of the
accused and of the person by whom he
was brought,

(ii) the age of the accused,

(iii) marks of injury, if any, on
the person of the accused,

(iv) the description of material
taken from the person of the accused for
DNA profiling, and

(v) other material particulars
in reasonable detail.

(3) The report shall state
precisely the reasons for each conclusion
arrived at.

(4)
The
exact
time
of
commencement and completion of the
examination shall also be noted in the
report.

(5) The registered medical
practitioner shall, without delay, forward
the report of the investigating officer,
who shall forward it to the Magistrate
referred to in section 173 as part of the
documents referred to in clause (a) of
Sub-Section (5) of that section."

9. The question of examination of
an accused of rape by a medical
practitioner as per the said Section is
necessary only if there are reasonable
grounds
for
believing
that
an
examination of his person will afford
evidence as to the commission of an
offence.

10. In the present case the
occurrence is dated 22.04.2019. The
application under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C.
is dated 07.05.2019. The immediate
corroboration of the offence through
medical evidence that too by examination
of the accused is only of any worth if the
same is done immediately after the
accused is apprehended and subjected to
medical examination for corroborating
the same. By passage of time the
evidence for corroborating and linking
him with an offence of rape looses its
efficacy. The prosecution case right from
the very inception has been that the
victim was taken away by the accused
persons at about 4.00 a.m. on 22.04.2019
and was locked up in the house for about
5 hours. The complainant has in her
statement mentioned that she had gone to
the field for harvesting wheat and when
she returned at about 10.00 a.m. she did
not find her daughter. The victim has in
her
statement
mentioned
that
on
22.04.2019 at about 4.00 a.m. her parents
had gone to harvest the crop of wheat
after which she went to attend the call of
nature and while coming back she was
taken away by the applicant and coaccused, Ranjeet to the house of the coaccused, Ranjeet. She stated that the
applicant and Ranjeet live in the same
house. The husband of the complainant
and the father of the victim has in his
statement stated that he had gone to
harvest the crop of wheat on 22.04.2019
at about 4.00 a.m. and was returning at
about 9.00 a.m. In so far as, time of the
present incident is concerned, the same
288 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
finds its consistency throughout the
complaint and in the statements of the
complainant, the victim and Brijpal. The
victim was also assaulted by the accused
persons and had received injuries on her
head and leg which was bleeding, the
same is mentioned in the complaint. The
victim was given medical treatment for
her injuries. She has specifically stated
that she was subjected to rape by the
applicant and co-accused, Ranjeet. The
prosecution in the present case has been
consistent so far as the allegation of rape
is concerned. There is no suppression of
any material fact which would go to the
extent of extending any benefit to the
accused at this stage as argued to be
extended under Section 114(g) of the
Indian Evidence Act. The offence is
serious in nature of committing rape of a
minor girl aged about 15 years as stated
in the complaint and the statements of the
prosecutrix recorded under Section 202
Cr.P.C.

11. Looking to the facts and
circumstances of the case, nature of
evidence and gravity of offence, I do not
find it a fit case bail, hence, the bail
application is rejected.

12. It is clarified that any
observation as made in this order is only
for the purpose of deciding this bail
application and shall have no effect in the
proceeding of trial.

13. The party shall file computer
generated
copy
of
such
order
downloaded from the official website of
High Court Allahabad.

14. The computer generated copy of
such order shall be self attested by the
counsel of the party concerned.
15. The concerned Court/Authority/Official
shall verify the authenticity of such
computerized copy of the order from the
official website of High Court Allahabad
and shall make a declaration of such
verification in writing.
----------
(2020)08ILR A288
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.07.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

Crl. Misc. Ist Bail Application No. 14299 of
2020

Moti ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Vivek Kumar Singh, Sri Mayank Yadav

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A., Sri Anjani Kumar Raghuvanshi

A. Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Section 439 - Bail - Nonexplanantion of Injuries - There is no
forensic
report
that
the
recovered
weapon was used in the commission of
the present offence - It's effect - Period
of detention already undergone, the
unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial
and the absence of any convincing
material to indicate the possibility of
tampering
with
the
evidence
-
Considered - Held, the applicant may be
enlarged on bail. (Para 11, 12 and 15)
Bail Application allowed (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Lakshmi Singh & ors. Vs St. of Bihar,
(1976) 4 SCC 394.
2. Bashishth Singh & anr. Vs St. of Bihar,
(2002)
10
SCC
384.