RAM KUMAR Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30-1-1999 passed by the Special Judge under Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in brevity 'Act'), Raipur in Special Sessions Case No. 99/98 whereby and whereunder learned trial Court after holding the appellant guilty for committing rape with the prosecutrix P.W. 1 (name not mentioned) convicted him under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (in brevity 'IPC') and sentenced him to undergo R1 for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 300/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional RI for six days. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without there being an iota of evidence, learned Court below has convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned and thereby committed illegality.

(2.) Prosecution case is brief is that on 17-7-1998 at about 12.10 pm, prosecutrix P.W. 1 reached to police station Magarlod and lodged a report against the appellant. Magarlod police registered the FIR Ex. P-1 as Crime No. 69/98 under Sections 366, 376 and 323 of IPC and also under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. In the said FIR, prosecutrix said that on 17-7-1998 at about 9.00 am she went towards Nursery to answer the call of nature. Appellant came and dragged her to shrub, closed her mouth when she attempted to shout, and committed forcible intercourse after removing clothes with her and thereafter ran away towards forest. She felt bad and returned home weeping and informed about the incident to her husband P.W. 2 Alkuram and her mother-in-law P.W. 6 Smt. Shantibai. Her mother-in-law informed this to her husband and thereafter the prosecutrix reached to the police station along with her husband and lodged the FIR Ex. P-1. After registration of crime against the appellant, Magarlod police during investigation seized the petticoat containing stains of semen vide Ex. P-2. Spot map was prepared by Patwari Ex. P-3. After obtaining necessary permission, the prosecutrix was sent for medical examination. P.W. 8 Dr. Smt. A. Tripathi examined the prosecutrix and noticed hymen old ruptured, no injury found over her body. Doctor prepared two slides from vaginal swab and handed over to the concerned constable with advice for chemical analysis. The doctor could not give any definite opinion regarding rape. The report is Ex. P-11. On the same day, she again examined the prosecutrix and did not find any mark of injury over her right chick vide her report Ex. P-12. The doctor also examined as per request of the police a Meroon petticoat and noticed some dirty white spot which she encircled by dot pen and also sealed it and handed over to the police with advice for chemical analysis. The report is Ex. P-13. Police arrested the appellant and seized one underwear by seizure memo Ex. P-10. The sealed packet containing slides was seized by seizure memo Ex. P-8. Caste certificate Ex. P-9 was collected. During investigation, police sent the appellant for his medical examination. Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Magarlod gave opinion after his examination that the appellant is capable in intercourse. He also noticed no external injuries over his body. Said report is Ex. P-17. The 10 prepared spot map Ex. P-15. He also sent the slides, undergarments of appellant and petticoat of the prosecutrix for chemical examination through letter Ex. P-16. FSL after necessary analysis noticed stain of semen and human spermatozoa over petticoat and the slides but not found the semen stains or human spermatozoa over the undergarment seized from the appellant. Statement of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in brevity 'Code'). After completion of investigation, charge sheet is filed on 17-8-1998 before the Special Judge competent to try the case under the Act. Learned Special Judge framed charge against the appellant for the offence under Section 376, IPC read with Section 3(2)(5) of the Act and Section 323, IPC. The appellant denied the charges and prayed for trial.

(3.) Before trial Court, prosecution examined 10 witnesses to prove the guilt of the appellant. Statement of appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in brevity 'Code') wherein he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution's case, pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime in question.