SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Munna Ram vs State on 16 May, 2017

S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 670 / 2017
Munna Ram S/o Sh. Nararam,, By Caste Jat, Resident of
Manakpura, Police Station Bhawanda, District Nagaur (Raj.)
(Presently Lodged in District Jail, Nagaur)

State of Rajasthan Through Public Prosecutor.

For Appellant(s) : Mr.Vineet Jain.

For Respondent(s) : Mr.AS Rathore, PP
For Complainant : Mr.Narpat Singh.


Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public

Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant. Perused

the case diary.

This appeal has been preferred on behalf of the appellant

under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

being aggrieved of the order dated 3.5.2017 passed by learned

Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Act Cases, Merta in

Cr. Case No.209/2017 rejecting the bail application preferred on

behalf of the appellant who is in custody in connection with FIR

No.119/2016, Police Station Bhawanda, District Nagaur, for the

offences under Section 376 IPC and Sections 3(1)(v)(xi) 3(2)(v)

of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

Shri Vineet Jain learned counsel for the appellant contends
(2 of 5)

that a totally false case has been foisted against the appellant.

The prosecutrix is a widowed woman aged well above 40 years.

She was in continuous consensual relationship with the appellant

for nearly last five years. It is her admitted case that the appellant

used to provide subsistence for her and her children after the

death of her husband. He further contends that the entire case

has been foisted for wreaking vengeance due to political enmity

because the appellant had been Sarpanch of the village in the

past. He further contends that the complainant married her minor

daughter Sushri L. with a person named Baldeva Ram. The

appellant opposed the said relationship. One Sena Ram who is the

cousin brother of Sushri L. and works with the present appellant,

got the girl free from the clutches of her husband and her father-

in-law who were trying to sell her off. Owing to this, the girl was

pressurised to file a false case against Sena Ram but she did not

accede to the pressure of the complainant but rather, lodged a FIR

No.217/2016 at P.S. Khivsar under Section 376D IPC and various

other offences against Sita Ram, Mahendra and Oma Ram who

have managed registration of instant false and fabricated FIR

against the appellant by instigating the complainant. He further

contends that even if the admitted allegations set out in the FIR

and the statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164 Cr.P.C. are

accepted as such, then too, clearly it is a case of consensual

relations between the prosecutrix and appellant who are major

persons. He thus, prays that the appellant deserves to be released

on bail.

Learned PP and learned counsel for the complainant
(3 of 5)

vehemently oppose the submissions advanced by the appellant’s

counsel. They urge that the appellant is an habitual offender and

history sheeter of the police station concerned. A large number of

criminal cases are registered against the appellant and he sexually

exploited the complainant by misusing his criminal background.

The complainant could somehow finally muster courage to lodge

the FIR against the appellant with great deal of persuasion and

help from her family members and thus, the appellant should not

be enlarged on bail.

I have considered the submissions advanced at the Bar and

have perused the case diary.

On a perusal of the FIR and statement of the prosecutrix

who is a major widowed woman having five children, it is apparent

that she admitted having continued sexual relations with the

appellant and also candidly stated that the appellant used to

provide subsistence to her and her children. She further alleged

that her minor daughter Sushri L. had established illicit relations

with her own cousin Sena Ram upon which the appellant asked

her to marry the girl and she accepted the said suggestion. She

further stated that after the marriage of her daughter, the

appellant stopped coming to her house.

The Court’s attention was also drawn to the FIR No.217/2016

lodged at P.S. Khinvsar by the complainant’s daughter Sushri L. on

16.1.2016 against Sita Ram, Mahendra and Oma Ram with the

allegations of rape and other offences against these persons. The

girl was examined under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and she clearly stated

that Sena Ram was supporting her in opposing her forced
(4 of 5)

marriage and to continue her further studies. In the FIR of the

present case as well as in the statement of the prosecutrix

recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she has clearly admitted that

the appellant used to provide subsistence for her and her children

after the death of her husband. The relations between the

prosecutrix and the appellant continued for almost four years

without a murmur. Whilst the complainant has alleged that the

appellant instigated her to marry her daughter Sushri L. and that

Sena Ram had subjected Sushri L. to rape, on the contrary the girl

has given out a different story in the FIR No.217/2016 lodged a

day prior to the registration of the present FIR.

So far as the criminal antecedents of the appellant are

concerned, none of the previous cases registered against him

involves the offence of rape. The appellant has been acquitted in

seven out of 17 cases registered against him between the year

1990 till date, In this background, the contention advanced by

Shri Vineet Jain that the relations if any between the prosecutrix

and the appellant were consensual, is not without merit.

Having regard to the entirety of facts and circumstances as

available on record, but without expressing any opinion on the

merits of the case, the prayer for bail made on behalf of the

appellant deserves to be accepted.

Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The order dated

3.5.2017 is set aside. It is ordered that the accused-appellant

Munna Ram arrested in connection with FIR No.119/2016, Police

Station Bhawanda, District Nagaur, shall be released on bail during

pendency of the trial; provided he furnishes a personal bond of
(5 of 5)

Rs.50,000/- and two surety bonds of Rs.25,000/- each to the

satisfaction of the learned trial court with the stipulation to appear

before that Court on all dates of hearing and as and when called

upon to do so.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link
MyNation Times Magzine

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.


Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation