THAKOR VISHNUJI @ POCHABHAI KADUJI Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT , original-accused, has challenged the judgment dated 17.11.09, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Mehsana, in Special Atrocity Case No.12/09. By the said judgment, the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under sections 363, 366, 376 of the Indian Penal Code and under sections 3(1)(x), 3(1)(xi), 3(1)(xii) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 ('Atrocities Act' for short). For the offences under sections 363, 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code he was sentenced to undergo rigourous imprisonment for 4 years, 5 years and 7 years respectively. For the offences under the Atrocities Act, he was sentenced to undergo rigourous imprisonment for six months, one year and one year under section 3(1)(x), (xi) and (xii) respectively and for offence under section 3(2)(v), he was ordered to serve life imprisonment.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution version was as follows:

(3.) WITH respect to the age of the prosecutrix, there is no dispute. Her birth certificate showing the date of birth as 2.9.93 was produced on record at Ex.48. She was just over 15 years of age on the date of the incident. There is no serious cross-examination on her date of birth to the witness also. We have, therefore, proceeded on the basis that she was barely 15 years of age when the incident took place. Learned counsel for the appellant, therefore, also did not seriously argue that in view of the age of the girl, offence under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was not made out. He, however, focused his attention on the offences under the Atrocities Act and in particular one punishable under section 3(2)(v) of the said Act. His contention was that there was previous relation between the accused and the prosecutrix. That both had gone out together with the consent of the prosecutrix and therefore, the learned Judge committed a serious error in convicting the appellant for the offences under the Atrocities Act. We would, therefore, confine our discussion in the judgment to these aspects.