Citation : 2006 Local Law (CG) 119
A High Court bench has overturned convictions in a long-running sexual offence appeal, ruling that the prosecution failed to prove the victim was a minor and that the accused occupied a dominating position under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
The appeal stems from Sessions Trial No. 389/2001 at Jagdalpur, where the appellant had originally been convicted on February 13, 2002, for offences under Section 376(1) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The trial court had sentenced him to concurrent terms of imprisonment and imposed fines.
According to the prosecution, the prosecutrix, identified in court records as Ku. Javendri alias Pushpa, alleged she had sexual relations with the appellant over an extended period following promises of marriage, resulting in pregnancy. The First Information Report was lodged on June 18, 2001, and the prosecution relied on school records and witness testimony to establish that the girl was below 16 years at the time of the alleged incidents.
On appeal, a High Court bench presided by Justice Sunil Kumar Sinha examined the record closely. The prosecution’s age evidence included a school admission form and an admission register that recorded a date of birth of June 20, 1986. But the court found inconsistencies between the father’s account of how the date was supplied and the headmaster’s testimony. The prosecutrix herself acknowledged in evidence that she was around eight when admitted to school, while the medical officer, who examined her, noted well-developed secondary sexual characteristics and stated the clinical picture was consistent with an adult — even though a requisition slip listed her age as 15.
Drawing on precedents that caution against relying uncritically on school admission entries when there is reason to doubt their accuracy, the High Court concluded the prosecution had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the victim was under 16 on the date of the alleged incidents. That finding negated the basis for a conviction under Section 376(1), which the court set aside.
The court also examined the charge under Section 3(1)(xii) of the Special Act. The bench observed that caste or tribal status alone does not trigger the operation of the Special Act: the prosecution must additionally demonstrate that the accused was in a position to dominate the victim’s will and exploited that position to obtain sexual advantage. In this case, the court found no evidence that the accused occupied such a dominating position. Instead, the victim’s conduct and testimony indicated repeated consensual relations carried out over time on the understanding that marriage would follow. On that basis the High Court held the Special Act conviction could not be sustained.
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted the appellant of charges under Section 376(1) of the IPC and Section 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The court noted the appellant was in custody and directed that he be released if not required in other matters.
The judgment highlights two critical legal principles. First, courts must scrutinize age evidence carefully; school admission entries may be unreliable when the surrounding testimony casts doubt on their accuracy. Second, membership of a scheduled caste or tribe alone does not satisfy the Special Act’s requirement of domination and exploitation; concrete evidence of a dominating position and its abuse is necessary to attract the Act’s provisions in sexual exploitation cases.
Case Details : Criminal Appeal No. 267 of 2002, Madan Lal vs. State of Chhattisgarh (11.12.2006)
Relevant Section:
SCHEDULED CASTES AND THE SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 – Section 3(1)(xii)
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 366; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Section 376(1); Scheduled Castes And The Scheduled Tribes (prevention Of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(1)(xii)
Cases Referred:
Brij Mohan Singh vs. Priya Brat Narain Sinha and Ors. ; Raunki Saroop vs. State
======
फौजदारी – बलात्कार – सहमति – भारतीय दंड संहिता, 1860 (धारा 376(2)) एवं अनुसूचित जनजाति (अत्याचार निवारण) अधिनियम, 1989 की धारा 3(1)(xii)
अपीलकर्ता को सत्र न्यायालय द्वारा भारतीय दंड संहिता की धारा 376(2) एवं अनुसूचित जनजाति (अत्याचार निवारण) अधिनियम की धारा 3(1)(xii) के अंतर्गत दोषी ठहराया गया था। इस निर्णय के विरुद्ध उसने उच्च न्यायालय में अपील दायर की।
निर्णय :
उच्च न्यायालय ने पाया कि रिकॉर्ड में ऐसा कोई ठोस साक्ष्य नहीं है जिससे यह निष्कर्ष निकाला जा सके कि अपीलकर्ता ने धारा 3(1)(xii) के तहत अपराध किया है। न्यायालय ने कहा कि इस धारा के अंतर्गत अपराध तभी सिद्ध होगा जब यह प्रमाणित हो कि अभियुक्त किसी अनुसूचित जाति या जनजाति की महिला की इच्छा पर प्रभुत्व स्थापित करने की स्थिति में था और उस प्रभुत्व का उपयोग कर उसने उसका यौन शोषण किया — ऐसी स्थिति में जब महिला अन्यथा उसकी सहमति नहीं देती।
मौजूदा मामले में यह कहीं से सिद्ध नहीं हुआ कि अभियुक्त किसी प्रकार की प्रभुत्वशाली स्थिति में था। इसके विपरीत, अभियोजन पक्ष की महिला गवाह (पीड़िता) के आचरण और उसके साक्ष्य से यह स्पष्ट होता है कि उसने अपनी इच्छा से यौन संबंध बनाए थे और दोनों के बीच लंबे समय तक ऐसे संबंध इस कारण बने रहे क्योंकि वे एक-दूसरे से विवाह करने वाले थे।
अदालत ने यह भी कहा कि यदि कोई लड़की बार-बार और लंबे समय तक इस आधार पर यौन संबंधों के लिए सहमति देती है कि उनका विवाह होने वाला है, और संयोग से वह अनुसूचित जाति या जनजाति से संबंधित है, तो मात्र इस कारण से धारा 3(1)(xii) का अपराध नहीं बनता। ऐसा इसलिए क्योंकि यह उसका स्वयं का निर्णय था, चाहे वह प्रेम या विवाह की आशा के कारण ही क्यों न हो।
इन तथ्यों और परिस्थितियों के आधार पर, न्यायालय ने यह निष्कर्ष निकाला कि अपीलकर्ता की सजा और दोषसिद्धि टिकाऊ नहीं है। अतः अपील स्वीकार की जाती है, तथा अपीलकर्ता को भारतीय दंड संहिता की धारा 376(2) और अनुसूचित जनजाति (अत्याचार निवारण) अधिनियम की धारा 3(1)(xii) के तहत दिए गए दोषसिद्धि और दंडादेश से मुक्त किया जाता है।
परिणामस्वरूप, अपील सफल रही, दोषसिद्धि रद्द की गई और अपीलकर्ता को बरी कर दिया गया।
