The court upheld cognizance of multiple offences against the appellant due to sufficient prima facie evidence, reaffirming that appeals should not interfere with lower court findings if justified.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 17-11-2025 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the State and learned counsel for respondent no. 2/informant.

2. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 21.05.2022 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge- I-cum Special Judge, Kaimur at Bhabua in connection with Bhabua (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 64 of 2021 registered under Sections 376 , 420, 323, 341, 504/34 of the IPC and Section 3 (x) (xi) (xii) of SC/ST Act whereby the concerned court has taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 376 , 420, 323, 341, 504/34 of the IPC and (i)(r)(s)(w), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act against the accused persons including the appellant.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that respondent no. 2/ informant submitted written statement before the SHO of Mahila Police Station, Bhabua stating therein that co-accused Rakesh Singh while alluring the informant on the pretext of marriage as well as providing job, took the informant to Haryana. It is further alleged that while staying in Haryana co- accused Rakesh Singh sexually exploited the informant on the pretext of marriage as a result of which informant became pregnant. It is further alleged that on 13.07.2021 co-accused Rakesh Singh after leaving the informant at Bhabua Railway Station tried to escape but he was caught by the informant upon which co-accused Rakesh Singh abused the informant by taking her caste name. When informant and her father went to the house of co-accused Rakesh Singh, co-accused Gauri Shankar Singh, appellant and others became aggressive and abused the informant and her father taking their caste name. It is alleged that on 23.07.2021 informant and her parents were abused and assaulted by means of lathi-danda by family member of co- accused Rakesh Singh and finally marriage was refused by co-

accused Rakesh Singh.

4. On the basis of written statement of informant, Bhabua (Mahila) P.S. Case No. 64 of 2021 has been registered under Sections 376 , 420, 323, 341, 504/34 of the IPC and Section 3 (x) (xi) (xii) of SC/ST Act.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that appellant is uncle of co-accused Rakesh Singh. Appellant was builder and father of the victim/informant was employed by the appellant. It is further submitted that informant's father took money from the appellant's father as well as appellant and when the said money was not returned by the informant's father, Complaint Case No. 997 of 2021 was filed by the father of the appellant against informant's father and he was also removed from the service due to which the present false case has been lodged by the informant against the appellant. He further submits that so far as the allegation of Section 376 of the IPC is concerned, there is no verbatim uttered by the informant against the appellant either in the statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. or in the initial version of prosecution story. He further submits that there is delay of about three and a half months as the alleged occurrence took place on 23.07.2021 and FIR was lodged on 01.11.2021 and no plausible explanation has been given regarding the said delay which questions the authenticity of the prosecution story. The appellant has no role in the said occurrence and he has been made accused in the present case just to pressurize him. He further submits that occurrence, as alleged in the FIR, has not taken place in public view and hence, no case under SC/ST Act is made out against the appellant. The appellant is quite innocent and has committed no offence as alleged in the FIR. He further submits that the investigating officer after investigation on all points has given clean chit to the appellant. Even the CDR does not indicate that the appellant was present at the place of occurrence but the concerned court without taking into account the materials available on record took cognizance which is not tenable and sustainable in the eye of law and hence, impugned order is f