CHHOTE ALIAS SURENDRA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed by the appellant/accused under section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the judgment dated 9.5.1997 passed by the Special Judge, Satna in Special Sessions Trial No.71/95, convicting and sentencing him under section 376(1) of IPC and section 3(1)(xi) of the Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'the Act'), for RI 7 years with fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of depositing the fine for six months RI in the earlier section while RI 2 years in the later section. The sentences are directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that on 9.4.95 at about 10 O' Clock in the morning the prosecutrix Janki, aged 10 years lodged the FIR at P.S. Tala, district Satna against the appellant contending that prior to the date of incident, she was used to work as laborer in the family of Ramkripal the father of the appellant and assigned the work to take the animals for grazing. On 8.4.95 in the night, after taking dinner, she was sleeping in the courtyard of the appellant's house. In the mid-night, she was subjected to forcefully intercourse by the appellant due to which blood was profused from her private part. She immediately informed about the incident to Ramkripal, the father of the appellant and Lallu, the elder brother of the appellant but they did not take any care and sent her with the appellant to her parents home. After leaving her at parental home, the appellant fled away. On reaching to home, she apprised about the incident to her mother Chourasia Bai (P.W.4). Then accompanied with her mother and village watchman Lalman (PW 2), she went to police station and lodged the FIR, on which, the offence of section 376 IPC and section 3(1) (xi) of the Act was registered against the appellant and he was arrested. The witnesses were interrogated. On completion of investigation the appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence.

(3.) After committing the case to the Sessions Court, on evaluation of the charge sheet also taking into consideration that the prosecutrix is from the community and caste covered under the Act, the charge of section 376 IPC and 3(1)(xi) of the Act were framed against the appellant. He abjured the guilt, on which, the trial was held. After recording the evidence, on appreciation of the same, the appellant was held guilty for the above mentioned offence and was also punished with the punishment as stated above. Being dissatisfied with such conviction and sentence, the appellant has come to this court with this appeal.