REKHA BAI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Petition is at the instance of the complainant -prosecutrix challenging the judgment dated 16.3.2006 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Atrocities) Rajgarh in Special Case No.87/2004, whereby the respondent No.2 Prem Singh has been acquitted of offence under Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and has been convicted for offence under Section 354 of the IPC instead of offence under Section 376 of the IPC. He has also been convicted for offence under Section 451 IPC instead of Section 450 of the IPC and under Section 506 of the IPC.

(2.) The prosecution case is that the applicant - prosecutrix who is Bhil by caste, was sleeping alone in her house in the intervening night of 16 -17th August, 2004, when the respondent No.2 Prem Singh at 2'O clock mid night had entered into her room and was committing rape, when the brother -in -law (Devar) of the prosecutrix had reached and the respondent No.2 had fled away from the spot. The prosecutrix after informing her brother -in -law, had lodged the report, on which the investigation had taken place and after filing the Challan the respondent No.2 was prosecuted for the alleged offences, in which the trial Court has passed the judgment to the effect as mentioned above.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and on the perusal of the record, it is found that the trial Court has taken into account the statement of the prosecutrix as also the medical evidence and the report (Ex.P/2) made by her while reaching to the conclusion that the offence of rape was not committed by the respondent No.2, but only an attempt was made by the respondent No.2 to commit rape by using force with intention to outrage her modesty. The medical evidence also does not support the prosecution case relating to the offence of rape. Dr. Sarita Singh who had examined the prosecutrix, has not given any definite opinion about rape. No injuries have been found on the body of the prosecutrix and though her Petticoat was sent to the FSL, but in the FSL report no sign of semen was found on the Petticoat. Considering these material aspects, the trial Court has rightly reached to the conclusion that the offence under Section 376 IPC is not proved but instead the offence under Section 354 has been proved beyond doubt. Same is the position in respect of offence under Section 451 and 506 of the IPC.