SK. ALLAUDDIN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sk. Allauddin (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') calls in question legality of his conviction for offences punishable under Secs. 366, 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, 'IPC') and Sec. 3(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short, the 'Act').

(2.) Filtering out unnecessary details, prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows : On 29-3-1990 in the afternoon the victim, a minor girl, whose name need not be mentioned, was returning from Adarsa Hindi Bal Vidyalaya to her house. Her father a cobbler by profession had gone out on work. The accused came with a rickshaw at about 4.30 p.m., induced her to accompany with him with her younger brother, promising to give them some sweets and fruits. He took his two sons, the victim and her younger brother in the rickshaw to the Traffic Gate Ring Road, Rourkela, gave them tiffin and requested the victim to accompany to the office where he had to receive some money. He took her to an isolated place, made her lie down under the bush in spite of her protests, removed her under garment and wearing apparel and raped her. After the act the victim put on her clothes and returned home with the accused. Though accused had threatened her with dire consequences in case she disclosed the heinous act, she told about the incident to her father's sister and father's mother. When her father returned home and learnt about the occurrence, at abut 8.30 p.m., he took her to the plant site Police Station and lodged oral report which was reduced to writing by S.I. of Police, read over and explained and the same was treated as F.I.R. The case was registered and investigation was undertaken. Under-garment and wearing apparel of the victim were seized and sent for chemical examination. After receipt of the report and completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted. Accused faced trial for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sec. 376, 366-A IPC and Sec. 3(xii) of the Act. Accused pleaded his innocence.

(3.) Ten witnesses were examined by prosecution to further its version. Accused did not choose to examine any witness. On consideration of evidence on record, particularly that of the victim (PW 6) and Lady Doctor (PW 10) who had examined the victim, learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh found the accused guilty of offences as stated at the outset and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years in respect of offence under Sec. 354 IPC, seven years in respect of offence under Sec. 366 IPC and two years in respect of Sec. 3(xii) of the Act. Sentences were directed to run concurrently. Learned Sessions Judge came to hold that victim's modesty had been outraged but no rape had been committed and therefore, Sec. 376 IPC had no application, and Sec. 354 IPC was applicable. He held that Sec. 366-A has no application because there was no inducement of a minor girl under the age of eighteen years to go from any place or to do any act with intent that such girl may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person. He further held that the victim belongs to scheduled caste and accused was a Muslim, and therefore, Sec. 3(xii) of the Act had application.