RAGHUVEER PRASAD Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On behalf of the appellant- accused, this appeal is preferred under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 being aggrieved by the judgment dated 12th December, 2003 passed by the Special Judge, Vidisha (MP) constituted under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short 'the Act') in Special Case No.109/2003, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Sections 366, 376(1) of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act with a direction to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- separately in first and second count, while life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- in the last count with stipulation of further imprisonment in default of depositing the fine amount, with a further direction that on depositing the fine amount, out of same Rs.2,500/- be given to the prosecutrix.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal, in short, are that on 19/10/2002 at about 11:55 a.m. one Sheela Bai (PW1), mother of the prosecutrix, lodged a missing person report of the prosecutrix at Police Station Shironj, contending that on 18/10/2002 she went to grossery shop to bring the sugar, at the same time, her daughterprosecutrix aged 14 years had gone to answer the call of nature. When she came back to home from the grossery shop, she did not find her daughter as without asking her she had gone somewhere. Subsequent to that, she had tried to trace her out in the village in the whole night but could not get success. Initially, the said report was registered in the Rojnamcha Sanha Ex.P1 and pursuant to that, an enquiry was started. In the course of such enquiry, a missing person report was registered at the same Police Station on 20/10/2002 vide Ex.P3. In further enquiry, it was recorded that the appellant by taking away the prosecutrix committed the offence of kidnapping and rape on which the First Information Report at Crime No.324/2002 was registered at the same Police Station on 23/10/2002 and the matter was taken into investigation. In the course of investigation, the prosecutrix was sent to the hospital where after medical examination, her MLC report Ex.P2 was prepared, the appellant was arrested, interrogatory statements of the witnesses including the prosecutrix were recorded. After preparing all necessary papers and carrying out the formalities, on completion of the investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the offence made punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of the IPC, so also for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act because such act was committed by the appellant (who is not covered under the caste of the Act) with the prosecutrix, covered under the scheduled community of the Act.

(3.) On evaluation of the charge-sheet, the charges for the above mentioned offences were framed against the appellant. He abjured the guilt on which the trial was held, in which as many as nine witnesses have been examined by the prosecution while no one was examined on behalf of the defence. After recording the evidence and on appreciation of the same, by holding guilt to the appellant for above mentioned offences, he has been sentenced as stated above. Being aggrieved by such conviction and sentence, the appellant has come to this Court with this appeal.