AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard both counsels through video conferencing as well as through telephonic conversation in which both the counsels Mr. Diwakar Jha, counsel for the appellant and Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, counsel for the State could hear each other and also I was able to conduct the hearing.
The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant is in custody for more than eight months. He has further submitted that the appellant is a very poor person and for livelihood of his family members he is doing job of driver. He has further submitted that the appellant has also lodged FIR against the father-in-law of the informant for the payment of remuneration to his son. He has further submitted that the present case is based on conjecture and surmises allegation with intention to grab the remuneration of appellant. He has further submitted that appellant never established with the informant nor insulted her in any manner. He has further submitted that under the facts and circumstances of the case no case is made out against the appellant under section 376 or section 3 (1)(r) of the SC/ST ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He has further said that the case is at the stage of examinaton of witnesses.
Learned counsel for the State, learned APP Mr. Ram Prakash Singh, has on the other hand submitted that it is a requirement of law that she should at least be heard and pointed out to the relevant provision under the SC/ST ( Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Counsel has also said that he is guilty of serious offence under section 376 IPC and he has not been in custody for a longer period.
At the request of learned counsel for the State, let notice be issued to the O.P. No. 2 through registered post with A/D as well as by ordinary process for which requisites etc. must be filed within a period of two weeks.
Put up this case after four weeks.