JUDGMENT

Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, J. - This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, passed by the learned Special Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha) (C.G.) in Special Sessions Trial No.22/2013 on 30.04.2014, convicting the appellants for the offence under Section 376 (g) of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo R.I. 10 years and for the offence under Section 3 (1) (12) of Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for 2 years with default stipulations.

2. Facts of the case in brief is this that on 02.05.2013, when the prosecutrix (P.W.-1) was alone in her house along with her children, then at about 8 PM in the night, the appellants came to her door asking for her husband. The prosecutrix replied that her husband is not at home, thereafter, the appellants and one another forcefully entered in her house and took her to the bedroom and then the appellant No.1 had forceful sexual intercourse without her consent and willingness. During the incident, the appellant No.2 and one other were holding the hands of the prosecutrix in assistance to the act done by the main accused. The prosecutrix immediately informed about this incident to her husband on mobile phone and also when he came back to his house. The prosecutrix is a member of scheduled caste. FIR (Ex.P-3) was lodged in the police station and on that basis, the case has been investigated and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed.

3. The trial Court charged the appellants with offence under Section 450 and 376 (g) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 3 (1) (12) and Section 3 (2) (5) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The appellants denied the charges and prayed for trial. The prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses on its behalf. On examining the appellants under Section 313, they denied all the incriminating evidence against them and pleaded innocence and false implication. In defence, the appellant No.2 has examined himself before the Court and two other witnesses were also examined in support of the defence. On completion of trial, judgment has been delivered, in which the appellants stand convicted and sentenced as mentioned aforesaid.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, that the trial Court has passed totally erroneous judgment of conviction without there being any basis of reliable and cogent evidence in support of the charge. The prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubts. The prosecutrix (P.W.-1) is an unreliable witness, she had reason to falsely implicate the appellants. The husband of the prosecutrix -Dharmendra Ratre (P.W.-2) was the then Sarpanch of respective Gram Panchayat and a No Confidence motion had been moved against him, regarding which, voting meeting was scheduled on 04.05.2013. The husband of the prosecutrix had threatened the appellants to withdraw No Confidence motion and when they did not agree and they did not succumbed to his threat, they have been falsely implicated in this case so that these appellants and one another may not be able to participate in the voting scheduled on 04.05.2013. Prosecutrix (P.W.-1) and her husband (P.W.-2) are interested witnesses and in the background of the incident, it can not be expected that they will make true statement. None of the other witnesses have supported the prosecution case. The medical examination report of the prosecutrix very clearly mentions that no sign of injuries were found on the body and private parts of the prosecutrix and no definite opinion was given by the Dr. Usha Suryawanshi (P.W.-8) in her report Ex.P-30.

5. It is further submitted that the story of the prosecution is highly improbable, which had been proved by the appellants in defence evidence. Ganpat Sahu (D.W.-1) has proved the documents that a notice of No Co