RAM LAL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29th April, 2006, passed in Special Sessions Trial No. 16/2005 by the Special Judge, [under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989], Korba, District Korba (CG). By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner with a direction to run the sentences concurrently:

(2.) THE facts, briefly stated, are as under:- On 7.3.2005, at about 8.00 a.m., prosecutrix - Laxmin Bai (PW-1) had gone to the forest for collecting Mahua seeds. Her brother- Shiv Raj Singh (PW-4) and one Bhogsingh (PW-5) were also present with her. The case of the prosecution is that when these 2 persons went to another area in the forest for collecting wood, the appellant, who was also collecting Mahua seeds, called the prosecutrix and took her to a nearby ditch and committed forcible sexual intercourse against her. The further case of the prosecution is that while the appellant was committing sexual intercourse, Shiv Raj Singh (PW-4) and Bhogsingh (PW-5) came to the ditch and saw the prosecutrix in compromising position with the appellant. They abused the appellant, then the appellant ran away from the place of occurrence. The matter was reported to the Police. During the course of investigation, School certificate of the prosecutrix was seized by the Police. A copy of gist of admission register of the School was also seized. In both the documents, the date of birth of the prosecutrix was mentioned as 5.11.89. The prosecutrix was a member of Kanwar community and thus, was belonging to Scheduled Tribe. The prosecution, therefore, filed a charge sheet under Section 376 IPC and Section 3 (2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Special Act'). The learned Special Judge recorded the finding that the prosecutrix was a minor girl, as her age was below 16 years on the date of the incident. It was proved that the appellant committed forcible sexual intercourse against the prosecutrix, who was belonging to Kanwar community, therefore, the appellant was liable for punishment under the aforementioned section of the IPC and the Special Act. The appellant, thus, was convicted and sentenced as above.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. D.K. Gwalre, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Special Court.