LAWS(CHH)-2018-8-104

LAKHMU ALIAS KADI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Decided On August 24, 2018
Lakhmu Alias Kadi Appellant
V/S
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this criminal appeal challenge levied is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16-8-2007 passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Bastar at Jagdalpur in ST No. 348/2006 whereby and whereunder he convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code (in brevity 'IPC') and sentenced him only under Section 366, IPC to undergo RI for four years and to pay a fine Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo additional RI for three months.

(2.) In brief the prosecution case is that the prosecutrix was about 14-15 years old on 25-7-2006 and resident of village Dhaniyaloor. She is a member of scheduled tribe and the appellant is a member of general category. On 25-7-2006, the appellant kidnapped the prosecutrix promising that he shall marry her. He took her away to different places. He was committing sexual intercourse with her on the pretext of marriage. After some times the prosecutrix returned back to her house and lodged report against the appellant. After completion of the investigation a charge sheet was filed against the appellant u/s 363, 366, 376, IPC and Section 3(1)(xii), 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereafter called as 'Act, 1989'). The trial Court framed the charges against the appellant under Sections 363, 366 and 376 of the IPC, alternatively, S. 3(1)(xii) of the Act, 1989. Appellant abjured the charges and faced trial. To bring home the charges prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. Appellant did not examine any witness in his defence. After completion of trial the trial Court acquitted the appellant from the charge punishable under Section 3(1)(xii) of the Act, 1989 and Section 376, IPC however convicted and sentenced him as aforesaid.

(3.) P.W. 4 prosecutrix says in para 1 of her statement given on oath on 18.04.2007 that her age is about 14 years.