RAJU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Sec. 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment dtd. 4/1/2014 passed by learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Koriya, Baikunthpur, in Special Sessions Trial No.05/2011, by which, the appellant herein has been convicted for the offences under Ss. 376, 493 of I.P.C. and Ss. 3(1)(xii) & 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'the SC/St Act') and sentenced as under :

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in short, is that the appellant committed sexual intercourse with major victim continuously from six months prior to 23/10/2010 near B.C.M. Forest Nala and other places against her will and without her consent knowing fully well that she is a member of Scheduled Tribe and the said act is punishable under Sec. 376 of I.P.C. and under the provisions of Sec. 3(1)(xii) and Sec. 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. Further case of the prosecution is that the appellant took the victim being a major girl, on the pretext of marriage, to B.C.M. Forest Nala, Pokhari Dafai Lal Ground and Sidhbaba Forest continuously six months prior to the date of FIR i.e. 23/10/2010 and committed sexual intercourse against her wish & will and without her consent and thereby committed the offence under Ss. 376 & 493 of I.P.C. and under Ss. 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. On the report of the victim, the FIR was registered vide Ex.P-1 and the victim and appellant were medically examined vide Ex.P-8 and seized slides were sent for FSL, but the FSL report was not brought on record. Thereafter, on due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences, which was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law, in which the accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence stating that he has been falsely implicated and he has not committed any offence.

(3.) In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 17 documents and the appellant-accused in support of his defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. Article A-1 and A-2 were also brought on record.