Meghalaya High Court: W. Diengdoh, J., allowed a bail application which was filed under Section 439 CrPC with a prayer for grant of bail wherein the petitioner was accused of raping his own mother.
Accused who is the biological son of the Complainant/victim raped her while she was in deep sleep in the kitchen of her house at Tiewlieh Mawmyrsiang village. She came to know about it only when her other children came to wake her up and was told that one of her granddaughter saw the accused lying on top of her. FIR was filed and accused/ Petitioner was then arrested on 03-06-2020 and was in judicial custody till date.
Counsel for the Petitioner who has submitted that this is a case where the prosecution has alleged that he has committed rape on his own mother, based on the allegation made in the FIR as well as the statements of the alleged eye-witnesses which was contradictory, he further submitted that the case has been charge sheeted and is at the stage of consideration of charge before the Court of the Sessions Judge, Shillong, however in the meantime, the accused/Petitioner has been in custody for the last 19(nineteen) months. The Complainant/victim in her statement u/s 164 Cr. P.C. has also stated that she woke up and found her son on top of her but since she was unconscious and in a state of shock, she did not know what he did to her. There was nothing mentioned about the alleged rape. Even the medical report did not reveal any evidence of sexual assault.
Addl. Sr. P.P. submitted that from the records including the case diary produced before this Court, what could be seen is that a prima facie case has been made out against the accused/Petitioner, inasmuch as, eye witnesses have been cited who have witnessed the offence being committed by the accused and as such, at this stage it may not be proper for this Court to allow the accused/Petitioner to be enlarged on bail.
The Court noted that the Complainant/victim initially lodged the FIR alleging that her own son has committed rape on her, but in her statement u/s 164 Cr.P.C., she could not definitely say that she was raped by the accused/Petitioner. The fact that she has retracted her statement in the form of an averment in a bail application filed by her on behalf of the accused/Petitioner also speak volumes about her pursuing the matter in earnest. The Court pertinently mentioned that medical examination of the Complainant/ victim did not reveal any evidence of sexual assault (though the same is subject to examination in Court). The Court reiterated the well settled principle of bail jurisprudence is that the courts should usually resort to “Bail and not Jail”, of course, under the facts and circumstances of each case.
In the light of the above Court allowed the application and hereby issued certain directions.[Pyrshangbor Myrthong v. State of Meghalaya, 2021 SCC OnLine Megh 220, decided on 15-11-2021]
Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Ms S. Nongsiej, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr S. Sengupta, Addl. Sr. PP., Mr H. Kharmih, Addl. Sr. PP., Mr. H. Abraham, GA. and Mr A.H. Kharwanlang, GA.