The main legal point established is the requirement of clear evidence to prove the commission of offences and the careful consideration of legal provisions and precedents in reaching a decision.

JUDGMENT :

R.C.S. Samant, J.

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.04.2014 passed by the Special Judge, Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Koriya, Baikunthpur, Chhattisgarh in Special Session Trial No.03/2013 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 363, 366, 376 & 493 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act(for short 'the Act, 1989') and sentencing him to undergo RI for 7 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, RI for life with fine of Rs.1,000/-, RI for 10 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- and RI for life with fine of Rs.1,000/- respectively with default stipulations.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is this that prosecutrix PW-8, who was of age 15 years went missing regarding which a missing report Ex.P- 18 was lodged by Rambai PW-9 on 27.5.2010. Appellant who is the resident of same locality was also found missing. The prosecutrix was found in the house of Khurshid on 19.6.2010. The police recorded her statement under Section 161 of CrPC, in which, she stated that about 7 to 8 months prior to the date of incident, the appellant used to visit her frequently on her way to school and express that he likes her and that he wants to marry her. The prosecutrix came to know about some negotiation of her marriage by her parent, who told about it to the appellant. The appellant then allured her and enticed her that he himself will marry her and started having physical relation with her. The appellant then abducted the minor prosecutrix, kept her in his custody and he also exploited her sexually. On the asking of the prosecutrix, the appellant then brought her back to Manendragarh on 18.6.2010. Subsequent to which, she was recovered by the police. Her statement was recorded and then she was handed over to her mother Rambai PW-9. The prosecutrix was medically examined. Statement of witnesses were recorded and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

3. After the completion of committal proceedings, the learned Special Judge took cognizance in the case and framed charges against the appellant under Sections 363, 366, 376 & 493 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989. The appellant denied the charges and pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 18 witnesses. The appellant/accused was examined under Section 313 of CrPC, who denied all the incriminating evidence against him and stated, that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The appellant/accused sought opportunity for examining witness in defence, but he has not examined any witness in defence. The learned trial Court after giving opportunity of hearing to the prosecution and the defence, has delivered the impugned judgment convicting and sentencing the appellant in the manner mentioned hereinabove.

4. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the conviction against the appellant is erroneous and without the evidence of prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution had failed to prove, that the prosecutrix was minor on the date of incident. Evidence of the prosecutrix PW-8 is full of contradictions and omissions. Further, her accompanying the appellant for going to the place shows, that she was a consenting party. She has made clear admission in cross-examination, that she and the appellant both had love affair and that she left her house for the reason that her parents were negotiating her marriage with somebody else. The other witnesses in this respect are the hearsay witnesses who have given the hearsay evidence, hence, the offences charged against the appellant are not made out in any respect. As regards the conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, 1989, it is submitted that the reason for commission of any such offence as alleged had not being specifically made out. The prosecutrix was a member of Scheduled Tribe, hence, this