JUDGMENT

Arvind Singh Chandel, J. - Since both the appeals arise out of a common judgment, they are decided together.

2. The instant appeals have been preferred against the judgment dated 14.12.2001 passed by the Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (henceforth the Act ), Jashpur in Special Case No.23 of 2001, whereby each of the Appellants has been convicted and sentenced as under:

3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on the relevant date the prosecutrix (PW1) was aged about 15 years 9 months. On 13.7.2000, at about 6 a.m., to go to the house of her maternal grand parents, the prosecutrix (PW1) came out of her house along with her friend Anita (PW2). At about 9 a.m., when they reached Sanna nala, both the Appellants met there. Appellant Ramkumar caught hands of the prosecutrix, then Anita (PW2) screaming ran away from there towards Basti. Thereafter, Appellant Ramkumar pressed her neck and dragging her towards under a tree committed rape with her there. thereafter, he called his friend Appellant Mahendra. The prosecutrix tried to run away from there, but Appellant Mahendra caught her and committed rape with her. Thereafter, she, weeping, returned. On the way, two persons along with Anita (PW2) met her. She told them about the incident and thereafter returned to the house of her maternal grand parents and also told them about the incident. A village meeting was convened. Thereafter, on the same day, i.e., the date of incident itself, at about 4 p.m., named First Information Report (Ex.P1) was lodged by her. She was medically examined by Dr. Vinodini Bakhla (PW4). Her report is Ex.P8 in which redness and swelling were found over private part of the prosecutrix. Her hymen was ruptured. Slight bleeding was found from the private part. Swelling, tenderness and laceration were found over the perineum. Statements of the prosecutrix as well as other witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Caste certificate and mark-sheet of the prosecutrix were also seized. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the Appellants. Charges under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act and Section 376(2)(g) of the Indian Penal Code were framed against them.

4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. In examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Appellants denied the guilt and pleaded innocence. 1 witness has been examined in defence.

5. On completion of the trial, vide the impugned judgment, the Trial Court acquitted the Appellants of the charge framed under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act, but convicted and sentenced them as mentioned in second paragraph of this judgment. Hence, these appeals.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the respective Appellants submitted that without there being any clinching evidence on record against the Appellants, the Trial Court has wrongly convicted them. It was submitted that in her Court statement, the prosecutrix (PW1) has admitted that she did not know the Appellants from before. She has further admitted that when she went to the police station, at that time, police officials had made the Appellants sit there and names of the Appellants were told to her by police officials and her maternal grand uncle. She has further admitted in paragraph 13 that when she went to the police station, at that time, Appellant Mahendra was not present there and she also did not know him from before and no test identification parade of Appellant Mahendra was conducted by the police. Since the prosecutrix did not know the Appellants from before, mentioning names of the Appellants by her in the FIR as well in her diary statement is suspicious. It was f