- (1.)This appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23-6-2001 passed by the Special Judge (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989 (for short, "the Act, 1989") Bastar, Jagdalpur, CG in Sessions Trial No. 470 of 2000 wherein the said Court has convicted the appellant for commission of offence under Sections 376 (1), 506 Part II, 323 of IPC and Section 3 (1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act , 1989 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, RI for one year and fine of Rs. 200/-, RI for three months RI for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- respectively with default stipulations.
(2.)In the present case, prosecutrix is PW/1. Date of incident is 5-9-2000 at Chachra Pakna forest. It is alleged that on 6-9-2000 at about 10. 30 pm in the night prosecutrix after taking her meals went along with her girl friend Shanti to see Lord Ganesh pandal and while she was coming back to her parental home with two persons namely Tensingh and Lakhan, appellant met near the house of one Mannu Mohra and asked Tensingh and Lakhan to go away. On their refusal he beat them and got them to run away. Prosecutrix tried to cry but her mouth was covered with cloth by the appellant and threatened to kill her if she will cry, thereafter appellant took her to a place namely Chachra Pakna forest and committed sexual intercourse with her without her consent and against her will knowingly that she belongs to a member of Scheduled Tribe. The matter was reported and investigated. After completion of trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced him as aforementioned.
(3.)Learned counsel for the appellant would submit as under:
i) As per version of prosecutrix, her birth year is 1984 and there is variation of three years of the age ascertained through X-ray, therefore, she was not minor on the date of incident.

ii The story put-forth by the prosecution witnesses is unnatural and cooked up which creates doubt on prosecution case.

Iii) FIR was lodged after two days and no explanation was given for delayed FIR, therefore, finding of the trial court is not liable to be sustained.

iv) There is enmity between appellant and parents of the prosecutrix but the trial court ignored the same. Prosecutrix deposed that she got fell down on floor but she sustained no injury which creates doubt on version of prosecution.

v) After the incident prosecutrix went to the house of her friend while her own house was on way to the house of her friend, therefore, conduct of the prosecutrix is unnatural.

vi) After the incident prosecutrix and her friend did not inform the incident to her family members and other authorities, therefore, finding of the trial court is not liable to be sustained.

vii) Dr (Smt) A. Chandra Rao (PW/6) who examined the prosecutrix is not supprting the version of prosecution, therefore, judgment of conviction is liable to be set aside