STATE OF H P Vs. GITA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted. By the impugned judgment a Single Judge of the High Court ordered a redo of the whole labourious exercise once completed in full measure at great cost of time and energy, solely on a technical ground.

(2.) Respondent was charge-sheeted for the offences under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 (for short 'the Act').

(3.) A Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Court who was specified as a Special Court to try the offences under the Act. A charge was framed by the said Sessions Court against the Respondent only for the offence under Section 376, IPC. After trial the said Sessions Judge convicted the Respondent for the offence under Section 376 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for seven years. Respondent filed an appeal before the High Court challenging the conviction and sentence on one technical ground i.e. the trial Judge had no jurisdiction as he was only the Special Court specified under the Act. The case was committed to that Court and resultantly that Court specified under the Act. The case was committed to that Court and resultantly that Court has no jurisdiction to try an offence under Section 376 of the IPC separately, accordingly to the High Court. The operative portion of the High Court judgment reads thus: