Mahesh Bhagwati, J. - (1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 29th October, 1990 whereby the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Kota has acquitted the accused respondent Hanuman in the offences under Section 3 (2) (V) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to be as the 'Act of 1989') and Section 376 of 5 IPC.
(2.) The prosecution story succinctly runs as under:- That on 4th February, 1990 at 7.00 PM, the prosecutrix went with her father Ram Narain, PW/7 to Police 2 Station, Sultanpur Distt. Kota and gave a verbal report to the effect that on 2.2.1990 during day hours, she was looking 10 after the crop of chillies in her field. The accused Hanuman belonging to her village came there and caught hold of her by neck and dragged to the field where the crop of mustard was standing. It is alleged that the accused made her to lie on the ground and ravished her. The prosecutrix became unconscious. When she came in senses, she found her clothes wet. She also 15 found semen on her vagina. Thereafter, she came to her house and narrated the entire incident to her mother and father. When her father was to proceed for Police Station to lodge the report, Nandlal PW/4, Danmal PW/2 and Kanwar Lal PW/8 and so many persons of village came and persuaded him not to lodge the report under the pretext that his daughter shall for no reason be defamed. It is stated that almost all the residents of his village made him to understand and later on the Panchayat of the village imposed a fine of Rs. 1200/- as cost on accused Hanuman. The next day, the accused again came to his field and not only abused him (her) but assaulted him (her) also as a result of which (s)he sustained a head injury. The police registered the FIR Ex.P/6 and commenced investigation.
(3.) The Investigating Officer recorded the statements of witnesses acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case, prepared the site plan Ex.P/8, seized 'Gaghara' of the prosecutrix vide memo Ex.P/9, 'Chappal' vide Ex.P/10, got the prosecutrix medically examined to ascertain the commission of rape and also to determine her age, arrested the accused Hanuman vide memo Ex.P/5 and after usual investigation, the S.H.O., filed challan against him in the Court. The accused Hanuman was charged for the offences under Section 376 of IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of the 'Act 1989'. The accused denied the guilt and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses to prove its case. The accused in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.PC., claimed innocence. He has produced two witnesses DW/1 Uda and DW/2 Motilal in defence. On completion of trial, the trial Court having not found the accused respondent guilty, acquitted him of all the charges. Hence this State Appeal.;