IMPORTANT POINT
The prosecution must establish that an offence under the SC/ST (POA) Act was committed specifically because the victim belongs to a Scheduled Caste, and the accused must have actual control over a juvenile to be convicted under the JJ Act.

JUDGMENT :

M.B.Snehalatha, J

This appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C by the accused in S.C.No.377/2013 of Sessions Court, Alappuzha has been filed through the Superintendent of Central Prison, Thiruvananthapuram under Section 383 of Cr.P.C challenging the conviction entered and sentence passed against him for the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376(1) of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), Sections 3(1)(xi) and 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SC/ST (POA) Act') and Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (for short 'JJ Act').

2. In short, the prosecution case is as follows:

On 15.10.2012, the accused enticed the victim minor girl, who belongs to Scheduled Caste out of the keeping her lawful guardian with the intention to seduce her into illicit intercourse and thereafter on 16.10.2012 the accused committed rape on her at the rented house of his friend at Parassinikkadavu and thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 366 and 376 (1) IPC, Sections 3(1)(xi) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and Section 23 of the JJ Act.

3. During the period of the alleged incident in this case, the victim girl was studying in a school at Cherthala in 11th standard.

4. On 15.10.2012 when the victim girl failed to return from the school in the evening even after the time at which she usually reaches, her father viz. PW2 lodged Ext.P1 complaint before the police and a crime was registered under Section 57 of the Kerala Police Act under the head ‘man missing’. Subsequently, when the victim girl was traced out by the police, she was produced before the Jurisdictional Magistrate. Based on the statement of the victim regarding the sexual assault suffered by her, the then Circle Inspector of Police, Cherthala, filed Ext.P10 report before the court to alter the section of offence into Sections 366 and 376(1) IPC, Sections 3(1)(xi) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and Section 23 of the JJ Act.

5. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Chethala arrested the accused, completed the investigation and filed final report against the accused before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court I, Cherthala. The learned Magistrate received the same as C.P.No.7/2013 and after complying the legal formalities under Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [Cr.P.C], the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Alappuzha for trial and disposal. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge against the accused for the offences under Sections 366 and 376(1) IPC, Sections 3(1)(xi) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and Section 23 of the JJ Act. Charge was read over and explained to the accused. The accused abjured guilt, alleged false implication and claimed to be tried.

6. To bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution examined PWs 1 to 12 and marked Exts.P1 to P16 documents. MOs 1 to 9 are the material objects. After closing the prosecution evidence, accused was examined under Section 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C. Accused maintained that he is innocent and he was falsely implicated. As the trial court found that it was not a fit case for acquittal under Section 232 Cr.P.C, accused was called upon to enter on his defence and to adduce any evidence, which he might have in support thereof. No defence evidence was adduced by the accused. Ext.D1 viz. the portion of 161 Cr.P.C statement of PW3 was marked on his side.

7. On an appreciation of the evidence, both oral and documentary, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 366 & 376(1) IPC, Sections 3(1)(xi) and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and Section 23 of the JJ Act. By the judgment impugned, the accused was convicted and sentenced as given below: