RAJU @ UMAKANT Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The present appeal challenges the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 2324 of 2006. By the said judgment, the High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the Special Judge, (SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Katni, Madhya Pradesh in Special Sessions Case No. 140 of 2004 and Special Sessions Case No. 136 of 2005. The appellant thus stands convicted for offences punishable under Ss. 366, 376(2) (g) and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Sec. 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short '1989 Act'). For the offence punishable under Sec. 366 IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to 5 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2000.00 and, in default of fine, to undergo a sentence of 6 months rigorous imprisonment. For the offences punishable under 376(2)(g) IPC and Sec. 3(2)(v) of the 1989 Act, the appellant has been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.2000.00 and, in default of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. For the offence under Sec. 342 IPC, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo 6 months' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.200.00 and, in default of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. Aggrieved, the appellant is before us.

(3.) The appellant was Accused No. 1 and one Jalandhar Kol was Accused No. 2. Accused No. 2 was sentenced for the same offences as that of the appellant except that there was no conviction and sentence on Accused No. 2 under the 1989 Act. The other difference was that insofar as Sec. 376(2)(g) was concerned, Accused No. 2 was sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2000.00 and, in default of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. The Accused No. 2 is not before us.