MASRA RAM @ MASRU Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nipun Saxena & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2019) 2 SCC 703, and further reiterated in Birbal Kumar Nishad Vs. State of Chhattisgarh (SLP (Crl.) No. 4540/2021, decided on 30/6/2021), emphasized the mandatory requirement of protecting the identity of victims of sexual offences, this Court deems it appropriate to withhold the real name and identity of the victim and her close relatives. Accordingly, for the purpose of maintaining anonymity, the victim has been referred to as the "prosecutrix" and/or "X" and close relatives has also been referred to by a fictitious name in the present judgment as under -

(2.) The present criminal appeal has been preferred under Sec. 14-A of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 read with Sec. 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the accused-appellant Masra Ram son of Surataji, assailing the legality and validity of the judgment dtd. 18/8/2023 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jalore (hereinafter referred to as "the learned trial court") in Sessions Case No.57/2022, whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the offences under Sec. 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 as under:-

(3.) As per prosecution case, on 20/5/2022, the complainant "A" (PW-9), who is the brother of the prosecutrix "X", appeared at Police Station Raniwara, District Jalore, and submitted a written report (Exhibit P-09). In the said report, the complainant stated that he belongs to a Scheduled Caste community and that his younger sister - the "prosecutrix", is a mentally challenged lady. It was alleged that on 19/5/2022 at about 6:00 PM, the "prosecutrix" had gone towards a nearby forest area for the purpose of defecation. The accused-appellant Masru, son of Surataji, resident of Maruwada, Tehsil Raniwara, followed her and forcibly dragged her by holding her hands towards a nearby stream (Nadi). When the "prosecutrix" did not return home for a considerable period of time, the complainant's son "B" went towards the said stream in search of her, where he allegedly saw that the skirt/petticoat of the "prosecutrix" was raised and the accused-appellant was lying on top of her and committing indecent acts. Upon raising an alarm by complainant's son "B", the accused-appellant allegedly got up and threatened him with dire consequences, stating that if the incident was disclosed to anyone, he would kill him and his father. Thereafter, the complainant's son "B", returned home and narrated the incident to his father i.e. complainant. The "prosecutrix", who was stated to be frightened, also disclosed the occurrence to the complainant.