- (1.) Aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.07.2010, passed by the learned Judge, Special Court for Schedule Caste & Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Cases, Jodhpur, whereby the learned Judge has acquitted the accused-respondent No.2, Bhom Singh, for offences under Sections 451, 354 IPC and under Section 3(1)(x)(xi) of SC/ST Act, 1989, the petitioner-complainant has approached this Court.
(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 01.04.2009, the petitioner-complainant, Smt. Shanti, filed a complaint before the Superintendent of Police (Rural), Jodhpur alleging that on 29.03.2009 at about 2:00 O'clock, when she was standing in her courtyard, the accusedrespondent No.2, Bhom Singh, came there, armed with sword, and caught hold of her. He attempted to outrage her modesty. Upon hearing her screams, her husband and nephew rushed to her rescue. Using abusive caste language, the accused-respondent ran away.
(3.) On 16.04.2009, the said complaint was forwarded to the Police Station, Lohawat. The said complaint was registered as FIR No.30/2009 for offences under Sections 451, 354 IPC and under Section 3(1)(x)(xi) of SC/ST Act. After a thorough investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet against the accused-respondent No.2. In order to buttress its case, the prosecution examined eight witnesses and submitted five documents. The statement of accused-respondent No.2 was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. After hearing both the parties, vide judgment dated 06.07.2010, the learned Judge acquitted the accused-respondent No.2 for the above mentioned offences. Hence, this petition before this Court. Mr. Pritam Solanki, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently contented that there are no contradictions between the testimonies of the witnesses. According to him, there is ample evidence to show that the accused-respondent had committed the offence under Section 354 IPC. Moreover, there is an ample evidence to show the fact that the offence under the ST/SC Act was, indeed, committed by the accused-respondent. On the other hand, Mrs. Chandra Lekha Parihar, the learned Public Prosecutor, has strenuously contended that there is not only the contradiction in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, but their testimonies have not been corroborated by the medical evidence. Moreover, the prosecution witnesses, themselves, have admitted that there is an animosity between the complainant-party and the accused-respondent. Thus, a grave possibility does exist that it is a case of false implication. Hence, the learned Judge was certainly justified in acquitting the accusedrespondent for the aforementioned offences. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment.;