Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, May 21 : The High Court today observed that the courts are duty bound to protect minor rape victims and witnesses while rejecting the bail plea of an accused involved in aiding and abetting the prime accused in rape of a minor girl.
Justice Sanjay Dhar while dismissing bail plea of wife of prime accused involved in rape of a minor girl said that without there being any change of circumstances in trial of the case, the petitioner-accused (wife of main accused) has rushed to this court and filed the instant bail application.
It is true, Justice Dhar said, that this court is vested with the jurisdiction to entertain a bail application even in a case where the trial court has refused to grant bail without there being any change in circumstances but then at least it was incumbent upon the petitioner-Zubeeda who is charged with aiding and abetting her husband in rape of victim to bring to the notice of this court any circumstance that would persuade this Court to take a view different from the one taken by the learned trial court.
“This can be ensured only if the statements of the victim and the material witnesses are recorded while keeping the accused behind the bars. Apart from the above, a perusal of the record shows that the trial court has rejected the bail application of the petitioner on 31.12.2021 and by that time the statement of the prosecutrix had already been recorded”, Court said.
So far as the trial of the case before the trial court is concerned, Justice Dhar recorded that the same is still at its inception and only the statement of the victim has been recorded and the statements of other prosecution witnesses including the father and three more relatives of the prosecutrix are yet to be recorded. “If the petitioner is admitted to bail at this stage, there is every apprehension that the prosecution witnesses, who happen to be the close relatives of the victim, would be influenced by the petitioner-accused”, reads the judgment.
The matrix of the case is that the petitioner is aged about 63 years and her husband is aged about 65 years. The victim is aged only 14 years and was sent by her father to the house of the petitioner to learn embroidery work. “The victim was under guardianship of the petitioner and her husband. A bond of trust and confidence must have been reposed by the victim upon the petitioner and her husband. By indulging in abhorrent behavior with the child victim, the petitioner and her husband have shaken her trust and confidence and brought a bad name to the relationship of a child with her guardian who were as good as her parents”, Justice Dhar mentioned in his verdict.
It has further been added that by the court that it is not an ordinary offence where the perpetrator of the crime is a young boy but it is a case where the perpetrators of the crime happen to be the persons aged more than four times that of the age of the victim. The gap court added, in the age of the accused and the victim makes their alleged act more heinous and it shows an element of perversion in the offence alleged.
“The position of the petitioner qua the victim makes the offence all the more heinous. Thus, merely because the petitioner happens to be a woman does not entitle her to concession of bail in these circumstances. Abetment of an offence carries the same punishment as is provided for that offence. Law provides punishment in a case where rape has been committed upon a woman under 16 years of age. As per this provision, the punishment provided for such offence is not less than 20 years, which may extend to imprisonment for life. Thus, the offences for which the petitioner is facing trial are serious in nature”, read the judgment.
Follow our WhatsApp channel