Point of Law: Criminal Law - Rape - Conviction Set aside - Benefit of Doubt - When the FIR of the incidence is belated and the delay is not explained properly, the FIR itself as also the case of the prosecution becomes doubtful and accused becomes entitled for the benefit of doubt.

ORDER :

1. The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.10.2002 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Ambikapur, District-Surguja (C.G.) in Special Sessions Trial No. 171/2000 whereby, the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Ambikapur convicted the appellant and sentenced him as under:-

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 27.05.1998 at about 10:30 a.m. the prosecutrix aged about 14 years, lodged an FIR against the appellant alleging therein that on 21.05.1998, her parents and family members were busy in marriage function of neighbour Devsay and she was all alone at her house. It is alleged that appellant Vishwanath came at house and demanded water. When prosecutrix gave water to the appellant, he caught hold of her hands, dragged her to nearby field and committed forcible sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. It has been further alleged that when Vishwanath was dragging her to the field, at that time, Rajkumar Uraon and Ajay Kumar Uraon saw him, and after some time when her brother Parmeshwar Prasad came there, he caught the appellant while he was trying to flee from the spot. Thereafter, her brother called the relatives of the appellant, and after some time, uncle of the appellant namely Bhola Yadav came there, brother of the prosecutrix narrated whole incident to him. Thereafter, an FIR Ex.P-12 was lodged against the appellant under Sections 376 of IPC and 3(1)(12) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

3. Permission letter for medical examination of the prosecutrix was obtained from the Sub-Divisional Officer vide Ex.P/14. Consent letter of father of the prosecutrix regarding medical examination was also obtained and on 27.05.1998 the prosecutrix was medically examined by Dr. Pratibha Rajul Jain (PW-7) vide Ex.P/4 who found no internal or external injuries and opined that the prosecutrix is habitual of sexual intercourse but no opinion could be given regarding recent sexual intercourse. Definite opinion could be given after chemical and microscopic examination of vaginal slides. For determination of age of the prosecutrix, x-ray was advised by the Doctor. X-ray of prosecutrix was done by Dr. S.K. Jain (PW-8) who gave his report vide Ex.P/6 opining the prosecutrix to be of 14 years old. The appellant was also medically examined by Dr. N.K. Pandey (PW-1), who gave his report vide Ex.P/1 and found the appellant capable for performing intercourse. Clothes of the prosecutrix were seized vide Ex.P/3. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination to FSL vide Ex.P/10 and, according to FSL report (Ex.P/11), no stain of sperm was found on the clothes of the prosecutrix. However, present of human sperm on the vaginal slided was confirmed. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed before concerned Court under Sections 376 of IPC and 3(1)(XII) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and charges were framed under Sections 376 of IPC and 3(2)(5) and 3(1)(XII) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

4. So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses. Accused also examined one defence witness in his defence. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.

5. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence the trial Court acquitted the appellant under Section 3(2)(5) and 3(1)(XII) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and held that the prosecut