RAM AVATAR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred by the Appellants assailing the judgment dtd. 20/12/2000 passed by the Special Judge (Atrocities), Bilaspur in Special Criminal Case No. 58 of 2000, whereby the Appellants have been convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 years with fine of Rs.500.00 under Sec. 450 of IPC, R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.500.00 under Sec. 376(2)(g) of IPC and R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.500.00 under Sec. 506(B) of IPC. In default of payment of fine amount, they were further required to undergo additional R.I. for two months.

(2.) Case of the prosecution in brief is that the prosecutrix lodged an FIR (Exhibit D-2) on 31/7/2000 before Police Station Pali, District Korba, which was registered as Crime No. 157 of 2000, for the offence punishable under Ss. 376, 506, 34 of IPC and Sec. 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Castes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the accused persons i.e., the Appellants herein. It was alleged by the Prosecutrix before the police authorities that about 18 days earlier i.e., on 14/7/2000 when she was all alone at her residence during night time the two Appellants entered into the house and ravished her in turns and thereafter they fled away from the scene. However, because of fear of her husband and also a fear of being chased away from the house, the Prosecutrix did not inform anybody in respect of the said act. She finally gathered strength and intimated the same to her husband and later on lodged a report on 31/7/2000 i.e., after 18 days from the alleged date of incident. Based upon the said report, the police conducted an investigation and the Appellants were arrested and in due course of time a charge-sheet was filed before the appropriate Court having jurisdiction and the matter was thereafter put to trial where the case was registered as Special Criminal Case No. 58 of 2000.

(3.) During the course of evidence, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and in rebuttal the defence examined one witness as DW-1. Finally, the Court below taking into consideration and relying on the evidence of the Prosecutrix and other witnesses, vide impugned judgment dtd. 20/12/2000 found the Appellants to be guilty of having committed the offence under Sec. 450, 376(2)(g) and 506(B) of IPC and upon conviction sentenced them as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. It is this judgment which is under challenge in the instant appeal.