LAXMIBAI Vs. SUKANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMPLAINANT is in revision against acquittal of the respondent for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 376, 451, 420. 504 and 506, I P.C. read with Section 3(1)(x) and (xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Heard Sri S.M. Kalwad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Laxman Mantagani, learned counsel for the respondent, and perused records. It reveals:

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner would submit, complainant has revealed exactly what had happened between her and the respondent -accused for more than 4 months. From such relationship, it is clear respondent had sexual intercourse with her promising marriage and thereafter cheated her attracting the ingredients of Section 415, I.P.C. He submits, since accused had molested her, the offence comes within the mischief of Section 376, I.P.C. and therefore conviction had to be recorded. He submits, on 25.9.2009 when he threatened her of dire consequences and assaulted her, he exposed himself for the charge under Sections 323, 504 and 506, I.P.C. He would further submit, respondent has abused her referring to her caste, attracting the penal provisions of Section 3(1)(x) and (xi) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

(3.) IN the present case, it suffices to consider what the complainant has deposed before court. From her deposition, it is clear complainant and respondent -accused were colleagues, being Govt. employees. She is a widow and has a son aged 10 years. It is her case she became friendly with the respondent which developed into a deep bond. Respondent is alleged to have taken advantage of it, and on 18.1.2009 entered her house and against her will, had intercourse. If that be so, she has not revealed in her evidence as to what was her reaction when he indulged in vulgarity. According to her, he promised to marry her and therefore she did not report. Even if we give margin and accept her theory, she has failed to explain why she was soliciting him till April 2009, i.e. for a period of four months. It is also her case, during this period respondent was a regular visitor and the relationship continued. To cap it, she has gone to his office on 25.9.2009 to question why he had stopped coming. This is not only indicative of the fact that it is the prosecutrix who wanted to continue the relationship with him. Even otherwise the fact that she was a willing partner to such act is evident from her down statement. Except for a casual statement that on 18.1.2009 when he came to her house at midnight and she asked him why he had come so late, she did not say whether she really resisted his move. On the other hand, after having such physical intimacy, she meekly accepted his proposition of marriage. Thus it is a case of the petitioner being a willing partner to the intimate physical act. The relationship appears to have soured and resulted in enmity only when he refused to marry her as per her own statement. In such a fact situation, it is difficult to accept her version that he indulged in the act of rape.