(1.) This State appeal is against acquittal of the respondents under Section 376(2)(g) of IPC, read with section 3(2)(v) of the S.C.S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The respondents were tried in Special Case No.282/1997 for the offences under section 376 (2)(g) I.P.C. read with section 3(2)(v) of the S.C.S.T.(Prevention of Atrocities) Act and vide judgment dated 10th August, 1998, the respondents were acquitted.
(2.) As per prosecution story, complainant is a blind lady. She was residing in the house of Rampyari Bai and used to sleep in the cattle house belonging to that lady. She is a poor lady and she used to pull on her life at the mercy of others. Two three days after Diwali, in the year 1997 when she was sleeping in the cattle house, all the co-respondents came there and the respondents had committed rape with the complainant with the help of Rampyari Bai. When she cried Rampyari Bai stopped her and said that if you will cry or will say to anybody, you will be killed and put to fire. However, the complainant on the basis of their voice identified the persons those who had committed rape with her. They were Neelu, Bablu,Manju and Pappu belonging to the same village, as they were talking with Rampyaribai. Rampyaribai did not allow her to go out from the house. Thereafter, the complainant narrated the story to Sarpanch Imrat Singh and Chaukidar and thereafter on 16.11.1997, Chaukidar informed to Police Station, Gulabganj and FIR was lodged. It was also submitted that earlier also during Navratri period all the four respondents had committed rape with her. But as she was threatened by Rampyari Bai, therefore, she did not lodge the report. Thereafter she was referred for medical examination. The slide of vaginal smear was prepared, sealed and referred to chemical examination. The matter was investigated and charge sheet was filed. The Trial court examined as many as eight witnesses and after considering the prosecution evidence found that the prosecution has failed to establish the allegations and charges levelled against the respondents and acquitted them, against which the State has preferred this appeal against acquittal after obtaining leave.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record.