IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH AT JAIPUR JUDGMENT Chetan & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan. (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.187/2011) S.B. Criminal Revision Petition under Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. read with Sections 12 and 53 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of the Children) Act, 2000. Date of Order :- May 04, 2011 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Mr.Govind Choudhary, for the petitioners. Mr.Paresh Chaudhary, Public Prosecutor. BY THE COURT:
The petitioners have challenged the order dated 24.12.2010, passed by the Juvenile Justice Board, Kota (‘the Board’, for short), whereby the learned Board has dismissed the bail application filed by the petitioners. They have also challenged the order dated 18.01.2011, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge No.5, Kota, whereby the learned Judge has upheld the order dated 24.12.2010.
The brief facts of the case are that on 15.10.2010, one Guddy @ Anarkali had lodged a report at Police Station Mahaveer Nagar, Kota against eight accused-persons including the petitioners, wherein she alleged that she has been gang raped by four accused-persons, including the petitioners. On the basis of the said report, the police had chalked out a formal FIR, FIR No.505/2010 for offences under Sections 452, 323, 341, 147, 376 and 120B IPC. During the course of investigation, the petitioners were arrested. However, as they were juvenile delinquents, their case was placed before the learned Board. Vide order dated 24.12.2010, the learned Board dismissed their bail application under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of the Children) Act, 2000 (‘the Act’, for short). Subsequently, the petitioners filed an appeal before the learned Judge. However, vide order dated 18.01.2011, the learned Judge, while upholding the order dated 24.12.2010, dismissed the appeal. Hence, this petition before this Court.
Mr. Govind Choudhary, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that both the Board and the learned Judge have erred in denying the benefit of bail on the ground that the petitioners are likely to come in connect with known and unknown criminals. According to him, there is no such evidence available on record that the petitioners belong to any known or unknown gang of criminals. Therefore, the basis for denying bail is unsustainable. Secondly, according to the prosecutrix herself, allegedly the petitioners and other accused-persons had assaulted her children. Therefore, she has falsely implicated the petitioners in a case of gang rape. Thirdly, the falsity of the case is apparent from the fact that her allegation of rape is not buttressed by the medical evidence. According to the medical report, no definite opinion could be given regarding forceful sexual intercourse.
On the other hand, Mr. Paresh Chaudhary, the learned Public Prosecutor, has strenuously contended that a gruesome crime of gang rape has been committed by the petitioners. Section 12 of the Act debars the grant of bail in case such a grant will defeat the ends of justice. According to the learned counsel, an offence of gang rape not only shatters the life of the victim, but also shocks the conscience of the society at large. In case the petitioners were to be granted bail, the sense of the justice, both of the victim and of the society, would be shattered. Secondly, merely because, there was an altercation between the prosecutrix’s children and the petitioners, a lady would not allege gang rape on such a flimsy ground. An allegation of rape exposes the victim to ridicule by the society. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case. Thirdly, law does not require corroboration from the medical evidence. In fact, according to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the testimony of the prosecutrix should be taken as the gospel truth.
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned orders.
It is, indeed, a misnomer that Section 12 of the Act is a mandatory provision. Section 12 of the Act is as under :
12. Bail of juvenile.-
(1) When any person accused of a bailable or non-bailable offence, and apparently a juvenile, is arrested or detained or appears or is brought before a Board, such person shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or in any other law for the time being in force, be released on bail with or without surety [or placed under the supervision of a Probation Officer or under the care of any fit institution or fit person] but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that the release is likely to bring him into association with any known criminal or expose him to moral, physical or psychological danger or that his release would defeat the ends of justice.
(2) When such person having been arrested is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the officer in-charge of the police station, such officer shall cause him to be kept only in an observation home in the prescribed manner until he can be brought before a Board.
(3) When such person is not released on bail under sub-section (1) by the Board it shall, instead of committing him to prison, make an order sending him to an observation home or a place of safety for such period during the pendency of the inquiry regarding him as may be specified in the order.
Thus, although the bail may be the rule, but under three circumstances, the benefit of bail can be denied to the juvenile delinquent : if it is shown that he keeps company with known or unknown criminals, if his release would expose him to mental, physical or psychological danger, or in case it would defeat the ends of justice.
Justice is neither a one way street, nor is it limited only to the accused. While rule of law demands that the accused be provided a fair trial, rule of law also dictates that the victim should have the feelings that justice has not only been done, but also appears to be done to him / her. If justice were not done to the victim, the victim would lose faith in the rule of law. Similarly, since crime is an act against the society, if justice were not done with the society, the faith of the society in the judicial process would be shattered. Therefore, the judiciary must balance the interest of the individual of the accused, on the one hand, with the interest of the victim and the society, on the other hand. Although it is true that the gravity of an offence cannot be the deciding factor, but while trying to administer justice, the Court must be conscious of the nature of the offence. It would be one of the factors to be kept in mind while trying to impart justice to the accused and to the victim, in particular, and to the society in general. In a case of gang rape to release the accused on bail would certainly defeat the ends of justice. This view has been held by this Court in the case of Om Singh @ Kuldeep Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.1277/2010 decided on 28.03.2011).
The Juvenile Justice Act is not meant to be used as a revolving door by the juvenile delinquent. Juvenile delinquent cannot argue that once he has committed a grave offence, he must be permitted to be released on bail so as to permit him to commit further crime. One of the aims of the Juvenile Justice Act is to reform the juvenile delinquent so that he is prevented from graduating to being a hardened criminal. This process of reform cannot be done by releasing the juvenile delinquent. He/she can be reformed only in an institutional setting. Therefore, the denial of a bail to the juvenile delinquent and keeping him within judicial custody is not a denial of his personal liberty or life. In fact, if he can be reformed, if he can be taught techniques and trade to earn a living, if he can be treated psychologically, if he can be reformed to the point that upon his release he will become a contributory member of the society, such a detention would be both in his interest and in the interest of the society.
An allegation of rape invites not only ridicule, but also ostracism of the victim. Therefore, repeatedly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that in a conservative society like ours, it is highly unlikely that a women would allege that she was ravished without any foundation. In the present case, the prosecutrix happens to be forty years old married women. Thus, it is highly unlikely that she would allege the offences of rape, that too of gang rape, merely to falsely implicate the petitioners. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel is unacceptable.
Hence, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. This petition, being devoid of any merit is, hereby, dismissed.
(R.S. CHAUHAN) J.
Manoj solank