BRIJMOHAN SAHU Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant criminal appeal is preferred under Sec. 14(A)(2) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, 'the Act, 1989') against order dtd. 22/4/2024 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Mahasamund (C.G.) (in bail application No.316/2024) whereby the application filed by the appellant under Sec. 438 of the Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No.66/2024 registered at Police Station Tumgaon, District Mahasamund (C.G.) for offence punishable under Ss. 376(2)(n), 506-B of the IPC and Sec. 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989, has been rejected.

(2.) Brief facts of the case, are that the prosecutrix has lodged a written report to the police on 31/3/2024 stating in it that she is working as contract Physical Instructor at Swami Atmanand School, District Sakti. In the month of September 2023 she got acquainted with appellant who was posted as Clerk at Municipal Council Arang. They started talking with each other by mobile phone. He showed his intimacy with her and proposed her. On 10/11/2023 he took her to Shane Punjab Dhaba, Tumgaon and took a room there. When she refused to stay in the room, he threatened her and forced her to stay in the room. He allured her that he will marry with her and then he made physical relation with her forcefully. He made her obscene video from his mobile phone. Thereafter, he made physical relation with her on various occasions at various places. He repeated his act on 2/1/2024 at Starwood hotel, Raipur and on 17/12/2023 at Shane Punjab Dhaba. Subsequently, when she came to know that the appelant is already married, then she started raising objection then the appellant abused her with name of her caste and refused to marry with her. She informed the incident to her friend and then lodged the report. On the report lodged by the prosecutrix the FIR under Sec. 376(2)(n), 506-B of the IPC and Sec. 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989 has been registered and the appellant is apprehending his arrest in the aforementioned offence.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the offence. The prosecutrix is a major lady and was having love affair with him. In order to extort money from the appellant she developed physical relation with the appellant and pressurized him to give divorce to his wife and to marry with her and when the appellant refused to do so, she has lodged the report. Initially the offence has been registered under Sec. 376(2)(n) of the IPC. The police has filed the charge sheet showing the appellant as absconding without following due procedure provided under Sec. 82 of the Cr.P.C. He would further submit that the prosecutrix is in habit of lodging false report and she has already lodged a report on 3/5/2023 against one Sanket Dharmkar for the same nature of offence and with the same manner of alleged act of rape upon her. He would also submit that from the mobile chats of the appellant with the prosecutrix it is apparent that she wants to extort money from the appellant and only to create the offence she first transferred the amount in the account of the appellant through mobile transaction and immediately thereafter asked the appellant to refund it which the appellant did everytime, which clearly reveals from the document of mobile chats and the bank account details of the appellant. She being the major lady and employed as a teacher fully known about the allurment or consequence of physical relation with a person, that too when in the earlier occasion she was being refused for marriage by the accused of the earlier report made by the prosecutrix. When she had already suffered by the act, it cannot be expected that she could be allured for the same act in the second time. There is no evidence that the appellant has prepared obscene video of the prosecutrix and got it viral in the mobile phone of others. He would also submit that the last incident of rape was alleged to be occurred on 2/1/2024, but the FIR has been lodged on 31/3/2024 and there is no explanation for delay in lodging the report. It is also submitted by him that the offence alleged under Sec. 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989 is not attracted against the present appellant as the offence has not been committed on the ground that the prosecutrix belongs to the Scheduled Caste community. Therefore, the provisions under Sec. 18 of the Act, 1989 would not be attracted and merely mentioning of offence under the Act, 1989 in the case would not be sufficient to dislodge the appellant to take benefit of anticipatory bail under the provisions of Sec. 438 of the Cr.P.C.