SHEIKH MUBARIK Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal revision is directed against the order dated 16.07.2014 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Narsinhgpur, in Special Case No.46/2014, whereby the charges under Sections 376, 376 (2) (Dhha) of the IPC and Sections 3 (1-12) and 3 (2-5) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act) 1989, was framed.

(2.) The facts necessary for disposal of this criminal revision may be summarized as hereunder: Prosecutrix aged about 22 years and belonging to a Scheduled Tribe, lived in the same neighbourhood as the petitioner/accused Sheikh Mubarik. About an year before the date of lodging of FIR on 03.04.2014, they fell in love. Accused/applicant promised to marry the prosecutrix. Thereafter, on the false promise of marriage, the petitioner has sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix on numerous occasions resulting in pregnancy. About eight days before lodging of FIR, when the prosecutrix was a month and a half pregnant, the petitioner/accused administered a tablet to her, inducing abortion. At around 4:30 a.m on 03.04.2014, the petitioner/accused called the prosecutrix to his home and informed her that he is unable to marry her because his marriage has been fixed at some other place. When the prosecutrix protested that if the petitioner would not marry to her, she would not leave his house, the petitioner slapped her. When the petitioner tried to chase the prosecturix away, she consumed "Dettol" in anger, thereafter, with a view to drive the prosecutrix away, the petitioner set the bed, on which the prosecutrix was sitting, afire. Thereafter, the petitioner ran away. Thus the petitioner raped the prosecutrix on several occasions for a period of about one year on false promise of marriage.

(3.) The impugned order has been assailed on the behalf of the petitioner mainly on the grounds that from the first information report and statements of the prosecutrix under Section 161 and Section 164 is clear that she is a mature women and had sexual intercourse on several occasions with the petitioner of her own free will and accord; therefore, no charge of rape is made out.