Crl. Misc. No.M-18186 of 2010 ::1:: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-18186 of 2010 Date of decision: 14.10.2010 Ram Kumar alias Manju .. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .. Respondent Present:- Mr.R.N.Lohan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.K.C.Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. * * * * S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecutrix has set up a completely different version and story in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. than what is stated by her in the FIR. It has been alleged by the prosecutrix in the FIR that Billu alias Siri Niwas (brother of the petitioner) and the petitioner had committed rape with her against her consent. It is alleged that the boys had committed rape by pointing a knife at her and by threatening to kill her. However, according to her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 28.04.2010, she names the petitioner as the person who had committed rape with her after he came to know of her affair with Billu @ Sri Niwas. Thereore, she has set up an entirely different story from that mentioned in the FIR. In the FIR, it has been alleged by the prosecutrix Crl. Misc. No.M-18186 of 2010 ::2:: that on 24.04.2010, she was going from Village Gatauli for her parental house at Muwana at 10.00 a.m. When she got down at Shilla Kheri Bus Stop and went to ease herself, she saw that three boys had parked their vehicle in front of her. They pressed her mouth and forcibly put her in the said vehicle. They then took the vehicle towards village Safidon. Thereafter, they took the prosecutrix to a plot. After stopping the car, first of all the elder boy named Billu alias Siri Niwas (brother of the petitioner) and then Ram Kumar alias Manju (petitioner) committed rape with her against her consent. The third boy, who was driving the vehicle, did not commit any wrong with her. Thereafter, the said boys left her there and went away. She boarded a tempo and came to her village Muwana and disclosed the incident to her parents. It is alleged that the boys had committed rape with her by pointing a knife at her and by threatening to kill her. In her statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C., she, however, states that she was on talking terms with Billu alias Siri Niwas son of Hari Om (brother of the petitioner), resident of Budha Khera, Tehsil Safidon, District Jind. She used to talk to him on phone even before her marriage. After marriage, she wanted to get rid of Billu alias Siri Niwas and she told him to talk to her. Thereafter, Billu alias Siri Niwas, it is alleged, showed her, her photographs and also made her hear her recorded conversation. Therefore, the prosecutrix had to do whatever Billu alias Siri Niwas wanted her to do. It is alleged that he had earlier demanded Rs.5,000/- from her and earlier on one occasion also, he had asked her for Rs.3,000/-. She had been giving the money to Billu alias Siri Niwas, concealing it from her in-laws. Billu had come in a car with another person, whose name she did not know. Then, both of them it is alleged, committed Crl. Misc. No.M-18186 of 2010 ::3:: rape with her. Then the younger brother of Billu alias Siri Niwas namely Ram Kumar alias Manju (petitioner) got to know about the affair, then, he also started pressurizing the prosecutrix that she would have to go whatever he would ask her to do. Then the prosecutrix went to meet him (petitioner) as well and he had also taken her photographs and recorded her conversations. Ram Kumar alias Manju (petitioner) it is alleged had called the prosecutrix and committed rape with her as he had come to know about her affair with Billu alias Siri Niwas. After committing rape with her, he left her at Bus Stand Safidon and told her not to talk about this to anyone and if she spoke about it, then, she and her children would be killed. Then, the prosecutrix caught a bus and got down at Jamini. Then, she went to village Muwana and informed her father about the entire incident. Then her father and father's elder brother and father's younger brother came to Jamini and she narrated the entire occurrence. Therefore, there indeed appear to be inconsistencies in the statement of the prosecutrix on the basis of which FIR was registered and in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Besides, it may be noticed that the FIR in the present case was recorded at 11.35 p.m. on 24.04.2010, whereas the medical of the prosecutrix was conducted during the day time on 24.04.2010. However, these aspects are to be considered and gone into by the learned trial Court after evidence is led and not at this stage. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that in consequence of the interim bail granted by this Court vide order dated 30.06.2010, the petitioner has joined the investigation and his custody is not required for the purposes of investigation. Crl. Misc. No.M-18186 of 2010 ::4:: In the facts and circumstances, the interim bail granted to the petitioner on 30.06.2010 is made absolute. The criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of. (S.S. SARON) October 14, 2010 JUDGE sukhpreet/amit