Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, July 22: In a case titled State Versus Varun Saini and Others, Presiding Officer Fast Track Court Jammu Amarjeet Singh Langeh has declined plea of victim to invoke provisions of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of atrocities) Act 1989 and rejected prayer of her counsel to submit the case to designated/ special court under the Act.
The allegations against accused in the case were that he entered into deceitful marriage with prosecutrix in the year 2022 and in December 2023 when prosecutrix became pregnant, accused allegedly administered some medicine to her as a result of which miscarriage took place and accused as such kept on raping her for two years under the bluff and deceit of fake marriage.
Ultimately, challan was produced in the court against main accused for offences under Sections 376/313/201 of IPC while as remaining accused were found involved in commission of offences under Sections 504/506 of IPC.
During arguments on charge, counsel for victim forcefully prayed for invocation of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989 against accused by highlighting that accused made insulting castiest remark against victim and that Section 3 (2)(V) of SC/ST (POA) Act is also attracted in the case.
While rejecting the submission of counsel for victim, Presiding Officer of the Court, Amarjeet Singh Langeh held, “there is no evidence that such remark was thrown at prosecutrix in public view and by submitting that Section 3 of Act be also invoked in the case, counsel for victim only goes overboard with this argument which is wholly specious,” adding “Special Act cannot be permitted to be used to settle personal conflicts and individual grudges mired in acrimony”.
Rejecting another argument of victim that Section 3 (2)(V) of Act in question be also pressed in the case, court further held, “offence of rape was allegedly committed against prosecutrix by accused not because she was a member of SC community but because she was deceitfully bluffed into belief of being married wife of accused”.
The court accordingly framed charges for offences under Sections 376/493/313/201 of IPC against the main accused while as remaining accused were charged for offence under Section 506 of IPC.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel