DHARAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) As per the prosecution case, the accused/appellant and the prosecutrix her mother Nilabati and sister Urmila they belong to Schedule Tribe and were living alongwith the appellant in their house for last 9-10 years. On 27/10/2012 the mother of the prosecutrix went to village Lohandiguda and wife of the appellant went to Dantewada, therefore, on 30/10/2012 in the house appellant/accused was alone with the prosecutrix and her sister. At about 9 p.m. the prosecutrix was watching TV in the house of the accused, sister of the prosecutrix had slept, at that time, the accused caught hold of the prosecutrix dragged her to different room and told her that after marriage what happens he will show her. Subsequently, the accused took out the garments of the prosecutrix and despite her resistance committed forceful sexual intercourse. The prosecutrix when raised alarm her neighbour Shyambati came there, thereafter it was told the accused who is maternal uncle has committed wrong with her and hearing so neighbour took the prosecutrix away along-with her sister gave them shelter for the night and when on the next day her mother came held meeting with them and eventually report was made on 01/11/2012 by Ex.P-9. Subsequently, the statement of the prosecutrix and the other witnesses were recorded and age of the prosecutrix was also affirmed by the Radiologist and with respect to caste, certificate was also seized and thereafter after recording statements charge sheet was filed against the appellant and since victim belong to Schedule Tribe, as such, offence under Section 376 of I.P.C. alongwith 3(1) (xii) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was filed against the appellant. After committal of the case to the Special Judge charges were framed against the appellant under Section 376 of I.P.C. and Section 3 (2) (V) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

(3.) During the course of trial, the appellant abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried and the prosecution on their behalf had examined 14 witnesses. The trial Court after evaluating all the facts and evidence found offence to be proved and convicted the appellant as aforesaid; hence this appeal.