VIKAS SONI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused under Sec. 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1989"), questioning the legality and propriety of the Order dtd. 13/9/2022 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities under the Act of 1989) in Special Case No.43 of 2022, whereby the application filed by the appellant under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Cr.P.C.") has been refused.

(2.) Case of the prosecution is that in the month of September, 2021, the appellant came in contact with the prosecutrix in order to carry out the work pertaining to interior decoration and finishing of his house and the appellant, who is aware that the victim is married having two children and her husband has left her, therefore, he stated her that his relation with his wife is not well and wanted to get divorce from her and want to marry with her (prosecutrix). Further prosecution story is that the appellant has given his house to the prosecutrix, which is situated at Agroha Colony, on 17/10/2021 and that by alluring her on the pretext of marriage, has committed sexual intercourse with her despite of her resistance and, it was continued up to 11/3/2022, owing to which, she became pregnant. It is alleged further that when she insisted for solemnization of marriage, he refused and instead pressurized her for the abortion and on account of his immense pressure, she (prosecutrix) has aborted her pregnancy and thereafter lodged a report on 11/6/2022, while narrating the entire facts before the Police Station-D.D.Nagar, Raipur, where the offence punishable under Ss. 376, 376(2)(k)(n), 506, 201 of IPC and also under Sec. 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989 has been registered and the appellant was thereafter arrested by the concerned police on 26/8/2022.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the alleged intercourse was done with the consent of the prosecutrix, who is admittedly a married woman and he never assured her to get marry and, in fact, she herself has consented for having physical relations with him without any resistance. It is contended further that based upon such a false allegation, the appellant has been implicated in relation to the alleged crime. However, his application filed under Sec. 439 of the Cr.P.C. has been rejected by the concerned trial Court vide impugned order dtd. 13/9/2022, which deserves to be set aside as the appellant was innocent and has been falsely implicated by the prosecutrix in connection with the said crime while lodging the report on 11/6/2022, after passing of the considerable period from the date of the commission of the alleged offence. Further contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that since the prosecutrix was a major lady, aged about 38 years and therefore, she was apparently a consenting party, else the alleged report would have been lodged by her immediately upon the commission of alleged offence. In support, he placed his reliance upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter on Uday vs. State of Karnataka, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 46 and praying for releasing the appellant on bail by reversing the finding of the trial Court as made vide order impugned dtd. 13/9/2022.