STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. PAPPU @ SHIRPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant-State against the acquittal of respondent-Pappu @ Shirpal Singh, by the impugned judgment dated 9.5.2001, passed by Special Judge, Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Sehore (MP), in Special Cri. Case No.71/2000, by which, he has been acquitted under Sections 376(2)(f) read with Section 511 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC' for short) and Section 3(2)(F) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

(2.) As per prosecution story, Prosecutrix (PW/1) is the member of Scheduled Caste. On 29.3.2000, at about 5:00 PM, when she was grazing her she-goat near culvert of Mangilal Rajput, accused-respondent came there and forced her to go along with him towards culvert. When she refuted, he caught hold her hands, forcibly took her, removed her cloths and made her naked. He slammed her on the ground. Thereafter, he himself removed his cloths completely and when he tried to commit rape, she cried for help. After hearing her cry, Jagdish Singh (PW/6) rushed at the place of occurrence. On seeing him, accused-respondent took her cloths and run towards culvert. Prosecutrix (PW/1) narrated the whole incident to Jagdish Singh (PW/6) and returned to her home, narrated the incident to her mother Komal Bai (PW/4), father Parasram (PW/2) and brother Laxmi Narayan (PW/7). Thereafter, Prosecutrix (PW/1) and her father Parasram (PW/2), narrated the incident to Devilal (PW/3), who is uncle of the prosecutrix. At that time, there was dark and therefore, matter was reported on the next day at 11:15 AM, on 30.3.2000. FIR was registered vide Ex.P/1 at Police Station Ahmadpur vide Crime No.54/2000. She was medically examined vide Ex.P/7 and after investigation charge sheet has been filed before Judicial Magistrate and matter was committed to the learned Sessions Court and charge under Sections 376(2)(f) read with Section 511 of IPC and Section 3(2)(F) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, has been framed against accused-respondent Pappu @ Shirpal Singh. The respondents denied the guilt and pleaded for trial. Statements of prosecutrix (PW/1), father of prosecutrix Parasram (PW/2), Devilal (PW/3), mother of prosecutrix Komal Bai (PW/4), C.M. Dwivedi (PW/5), Jagdish Singh Solanki (PW/6), brother of prosecutrix Laxmi Narayan (PW/7), Mishri Lal (PW/8), B.S. Kang (PW/9) and Dr. Smt. Rita Yadu (PW/10) were recorded and proved Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/7 and Ex.D/1.

(3.) Learned trial Court after appreciating the statements of prosecutrix (PW/1), Parasram (PW/2), Devilal (PW/3), Komal Bai (PW/4), Jagdish Singh (PW/6) and Laxmi Narayan (PW/7) came to the conclusion that it is a case of false implication. There was inimical terms between accused-respondent and father of the prosecutrix, who was in the same agricultural field where prosecutrix was grazing her she-goat, but he could not reach at the place of occurrence. There is a Police Station at the distance of 2-3 kms from Village Rawatkheda and number of transportation and other facilities are available, but in spite of that, FIR was lodged on the next day.