Vimlendra Singh alias Prince Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

CRA, 3580 of 2014, Judgment Date: Oct 16, 2019

Law laid down -

1. Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989– As per unamended provision, the prosecution was required to establish that the prosecutrix who was subjected to any offence under the IPC was subjected on the ground that she is a member of SC/ST community. In view of evidence on record, the prosecution could not establish that offence allegedly committed was on the ground that prosecutrix belonged to reserved community. Hence, the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989 is not made out.

2. Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007 – Rule 12 (3): the date of birth certificate from the school first attended (other than the play school) can be basis for determination of age. In the instant case, the admission register of primary school, the school first attended by the prosecutrix, was not produced. The transfer certificate issued by the said school was not proved by producing any witness of the first school. Hence, the transfer certificate of first school cannot be admitted in evidence.

3. Rule 12(3) – Interpretation of Statute – if a statute prescribes a thing should be done in a particular manner, it has to be done in the same manner and other methods are forbidden.

4. Interpretation of Statute – If provision of a Statute is clear and unambiguous, it has to be given effect to, irrespective of the consequences.

5. FIR–Belated lodgment of– the prosecutrix was allegedly raped on 27^th October, 2012 whereas FIR was lodged  on 22nd June, 2013. The delay is not explained which causes a dent on the credibility of story of prosecution.

Vimlendra Singh alias Prince Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh