Ramachandran Nair, J.

1. The accused in S.C. No.195/2008 on the file of the Special Court for trial of cases under Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short SC/ST (PA) Act'), is the appellant herein. The offences alleged are under Sections 376 and 417 I.P.C. and Sections 3(1)(xi) and (xii) and 3(2) of the SC/ST (PA) Act.

2. The Court below found the accused guilty under Sections 376 and 417 I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PA) Act and it was found that he is not guilty under Sections 3 (1)(xi) and (xii) of the same Act. The sentences awarded are the following: To undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 417 I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/-and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two years for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C., and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for a further period of two years for the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PA) Act.

3. The appellant belongs to Hindu Thiyya community and the prosecutrix is a Scheduled Caste who belongs to Hindu Pulaya community.

4. The case arose out of a private complaint filed by the prosecutrix who has been examined as P.W.6, as C.M.P.No.688/2007 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Perambra. Therein, the offence alleged is under Sections 376 and 417 I.P.C. The said Court, by invoking Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. forwarded the complaint to the Perambra Police Station and accordingly a crime was registered and investigated upon. The case was charge sheeted by P.W.21, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Badagara. P.W.19 investigated the case initially.

5. We heard learned counsel for the appellant Shri P.V. Kunhikrishnan and Smt. Praicy Joseph, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

6. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the conviction for offence under Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (PA) Act cannot be sustained. There is no allegation that any offence has been committed by the accused because of racial prejudice. Merely because P.W.6 belongs to a Scheduled Caste community, learned counsel submitted that the offence cannot be said to have been committed and he relied upon various decisions of this Court and the Apex Court in that context.

7. We will first narrate the prosecution case and then will come to the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant and the prosecution. P.W.6 is the daughter of P.W.17, Smt. Kalyani. They have been residing along with other family members. While so, their properties were conveyed to the accused by way of an exchange deed by the middle of October, 2006. P.W.6 was married to one Ravi previously and had severed her relationship with him after it was revealed that he was already married and had a child. At that time there were negotiations between the parities for the purchase of the property by the accused. It is alleged that the accused pretended to love P.W.6 and the said intimacy developed and that he had promised that he will marry the prosecutrix alone. She had gone along with the accused in his car on several occasions to places like Wayanad, Kayanna and Balussery and had indulged in sexual intercourses. According to her, only because of the promise given to her to marry her, she had given consent for the same. He has been coming to her house on several occasions. When she became pregnant, the accused wanted her to abort the pregnancy after consulting a doctor. She refused to do so and it is at that stage the accused informed her that he is already married and is having children. It is stated that as she felt cheated, she lodged a