MADAN LAL Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentenced awarded to the appellant in Sessions Trial No. 389/2001 on 13-2-2002 by the Special Judge, under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Bastar at Jagdalpur, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 376(1), IPC and Section 3(1)(xii) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Special Act') and sentenced to undergo RI for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for 1 1/2 years and RI for 3 years and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months, respectively.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that the prosecutrix Ku. Javendri @ Pushpa, a girl aged about 15 years, was subjected to sexual intercourse by this appellant for many times saying that he would marry her. As a result of their long sexual relations, the prosecutrix became pregnant on account of which, a meeting in the village was held and when nothing fruitful came out from the meeting, a First Information Report was lodged by the prosecutrix on 18-6-2001. In this report, she makes allegations that she was subjected to sexual intercourse by this appellant for the first time one year prior to the lodging of report. THE FIR has been proved as Ex. P-3. On this report, the investigation commenced and ultimately after completion thereof, charge-sheet was filed under the aforesaid section of the IPC and the Special Act. On conclusion of trial, the appellant was held guilty under the said Section of IPC and Special Act and was directed to suffer the sentences, concurrently, referred to above.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant argued that the finding in relation to the age of the prosecutrix is not in accordance with law and, in fact, the prosecution has been failed to prove that the prosecutrix was below 16 years of age on the date of incident. He secondly argued that in the facts and circumstances of this case, when the prosccutrix was a consenting party with the appellant and both had enjoyed their long sexual relations, therefore, only because the prosccutrix happens to be the member of Scheduled Tribe, an offence under Section 3(1)(xii) of the Special Act would not be made out.