The court held that evidence must establish exploitation and dominance to uphold convictions under the S.C. & S.T. Act; mere consent and intimacy do not satisfy this requirement.

JUDGMENT :

A.C. BEHERA, J.

1. The appellant, by preferring the appeal has called in question to the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.04.1995 passed by the Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Balangir-Sonepur, Balangir in Sessions Case No.88 of 1994 arising out of G.R. Case. No.147 of 1993

The appellant (accused) has been convicted for the offence under Section 3 (1) (XII) of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

For the above conviction, he (Appellant/accused) has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 3 (three) years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 3 (1) (XII) of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Prosecution Case

2. The case of the prosecution basing upon the story narrated in the F.I.R. vide (Ext.6) during trial before the trial court was that, the victim (P.W.5) belongs to Tiara by caste, which is a scheduled caste. The accused belongs to Dumal by caste, which is not a scheduled caste or scheduled tribe. The accused and the victim both being the persons of same village, they were well-known to each other from their respective childhoods. After reaching their respective age of adolescence, whenever the victim was going to fetch water from the village Chuan, the accused was meeting her and was expressing before her (victim) that, he (accused) is interested to marry her. When the accused promised to marry the victim, then, she (victim) allowed the accused to have sex with her. Accordingly, the accused and the victim were indulged with sexual intercourse in many occasions. So, due to such frequent sexual intercourse between them, the victim conceived. While the victim was carrying two months of her pregnancy, she (victim) disclosed about the same before the accused, but the accused advised her (victim) not to go before any doctor for termination of her pregnancy, because he (accused) will accept her (victim) as his wife.

Subsequent thereto, when, he (accused) took the victim to his house to keep her as his wife, the father of the accused did not allow her (victim), rather bolted the door from inside in order to prevent the victim from entering into his house. So, without getting any way, the victim sat on the verandah of the accused and cried. For which, many persons gathered there. At night, there was a Panch, wherein she (victim) narrated the entire episode. Though the accused attended that Panch, but denied all the allegations alleged by the victim against him. So, on its next day, the victim came to the police station with her father along with one Sankar Meher and lodged the F.I.R. (vide Ext.6) before the O.I.C. Binika P.S. (P.W.10) against the accused.

3. Basing upon such F.I.R. vide Ext.6, the O.I.C. Binika P.S. registered Binika P.S. Case No.43 of 26.08.1993 and he (O.I.C. Binika P.S.) himself took up the investigation of the case.

During investigation, he (I.O.) examined the victim, recorded her statements, examined her father along with other witnesses, sent the victim through requisition for her medical examination and accordingly, victim was medically examined. He (I.O.) visited the spot, examined other witnesses, arrested the accused and sent him through requisition for his medical examination and accordingly, the accused was medically examined and then forwarded him (accused) to the court. He (I.O.) seized one admission register of Sarguna Government U.P. School (Ext.11) and received the medical examination report of the accused and the victim. He (I.O.) made a prayer before the S.D.J.M. Sonepur for recording of the statements of the victim U/s 164 of the Cr.P.C. and accordingly, her statements U/