The judgment emphasizes the importance of establishing intent and knowledge in proving offences, as evidenced by the court's decision to acquit the accused under the Atrocity Act due to lack of evidence of the accused's awareness of the victim's caste and intent to abuse it.

K.S. Jhaveri, J.

1. This appeal is filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 09.06.2011 passed by learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar. By the said judgment, the accused was held guilty for offences punishable under Sections 363 and 366 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC") and ordered to undergo imprisonment for seven years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, the accused was ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. For offence punishable under Section 376 of IPC, the accused was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs. 10,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment of one year was imposed. The accused was also convicted for the offence punishable under Section3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, "Atrocity Act") and ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, the accused was ordered to undergo further simple imprisonment of one year. All the sentences were to run concurrently. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the accused has preferred present appeal.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant was residing with his family in a hut on the banks of the river Aaji and was doing labour work. It is alleged that, on 1.6.2009, when the complainant went for labour work, the accused had kidnapped his four year old daughter and committed rape on her. It is alleged that though the accused was knowing that she belongs to 'adivasi', she was raped and thereby the accused had also committed an offence under the Atrocity Act. With these allegations, a complaint was filed against the accused before Jodiya Police Station.

2.1 Upon filing of the complaint, investigation was carried out and the accused was arrested and charge-sheet was submitted in the Court of learned Magistrate. However, as the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the same was committed to Sessions Court. Thereafter, charges were framed against the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

2.2 During the trial, the prosecution had examined following witnesses :-

Sr. No.	Name	Exhibit
1	Dr. Girish Keshavji Ganatra.	8
2	Nabhu Nagubhai Damor Bhil.	16
3	Ramnikgar Hiragar Gosai.	21
4	Prabhu Nagubhai.	25
5	Champaben w/o Nabu.	26
6	Nagubhai Varsingbhai Damor.	28
7	Ghumabhai Nanjibhai Damor.	29
8	Ashokbhai Devshibhai Boshiya.	30
9	Ayubbhai Hajibhai Badi.	36
10	Victim.	39
11	Nilesh Samjubhai Gadhavi.	46
12	Navlakdan Shambhudan Mokra, PSI.	54
13	Vitthalbhai Jodhabhai Bharvad, PSI.	55
14	Hamir Mepabhai.	62
15	Bhavanbhai Aalabha.	64
16	Nalinkant Narshibhai.	65
17	Sanjaybhai Tharshibhai Gadhvi.	71
18	Narendrasinh Ramsinh Jadeja.	85

2.3 The prosecution has also produced and relied upon following documentary evidence:-

Sr. No.	Description	Exhibit
1	Yadi for medical examination of the accused.	9
2	Medical examination report of the accused	10
3	MLC case papers.	11
4	Certificate of treatment of the victim.	12
5	Yadi for certificate of treatment of the victim.	13
6	Original complaint.	17
7	Caste certificates.	18, 19
8	Panchnama of the place of offence.	22
9	Panchnama of physical condition of the victim.	23
10	Panchnama of physical condition of the accused.	27
11	Panchnama of seizure of truck used in the offence.	31
12	MLC case papers and Yadi.	47, 48
13	Medical report of the victim.	49
14	Forwarding letter for sendin