The probative force of the victim's evidence in sexual assault cases and the requirement to prove the ground of the victim's belonging to the Scheduled Caste community for conviction under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act.

S.P. GARG, J.

1. Aggrieved by a judgment dated 03.12.2014 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 207/2013 arising out of FIR No. 22/2009 under Sections 376/506/323 IPC and Section 3 of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (in short ‘SC/ST Act’) PS Baniyadher whereby the appellant – Rameez @ Ramish Ahmed was held guilty for committing offences punishable under Sections 376/323/506 IPC and 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, the instant appeal has been preferred by him to challenge its legality and correctness. By an order dated 09.12.2014, the appellant was sentenced to undergo RI for life with fine Rs. 50,000/- for the offence under Section 376 IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act; RI for one year with fine Rs. 5,000/- under Section 506 IPC and RI for six months with fine Rs. 5,000/- under Section 323 IPC. The sentences were to operate concurrently.

2. Shorn of details, the prosecution case as set up in the charge-sheet was that on 24.04.2009 the prosecutrix ‘X’ (changed name) aged around 10 years was present at their mango orchard at village Naroli to look after it in the absence of her parents who had gone to see her ‘mausi’ suffering from some ailment at village Khera. The victim’s parents had taken the said mango orchard on contract from Nanhe Mian, the appellant’s uncle. At about 01.00 p.m. the appellant came at the tube-well installed in a nearby orchard on a bicycle and enquired from the prosecutrix about her mother. ‘X’ informed that her mother had gone to Khera. The appellant immediately forcibly dragged ‘X’ to the ‘kothri’ of the tube-well and threatened to kill her if she raised alarm. Inside the ‘kothri’, rape was committed on her person by the appellant. When her sister PW-2 (Rakhi) arrived at the spot to serve lunch, she did not find ‘X’ there. She went to the ‘kothri’ and saw ‘X’ lying unconscious; her salwar was away at some distance. On seeing it, Rakhi frightened; she poured water on X’s face and brought her home. She immediately informed her parents about the incident and they rushed home at around 04.00 p.m. ‘X’ was taken by her parents to the police chowki in the village to lodge complaint. The police did not register the complaint. On the third day, they approached senior police officers at Sambhal. On their intervention, complaint (Ex.PW-1/1) of victim’s father came to be recorded. The investigation was carried out by PW14 (Sarvesh Kumar Mishara). On 08.05.2009 the victim along with her mother and sister recorded their supplementary statements. Efforts by the Investigating Officer to apprehend the appellant proved futile. On 18.05.2009 clothes which the prosecutrix was wearing at the time of occurrence were produced and seized by the Investigating Officer. PW-15 (Brajesh Singh) took over further investigation on 19.05.2009. In the meantime, the appellant surrendered before the Court and was arrested. Statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. Various exhibits collected during investigation were sent for examination to Forensic Science Laboratory and its report was collected. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for commission of the aforesaid offences before the Court concerned.

3. By an order dated 18.11.2009, charge for the commission of the above said offences was framed against the appellant by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.2, Moradabad; the appellant pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed trial. The prosecution examined PW-1 (Badan Singh) before the said Court on 29.11.2011. By an order dated 30.08.2013 in Transfer Petition (Crl.) No.387/2012 ‘Badan Singh vs. Ramiz @ Ramish Ahamed & Anr.’, the Hon’ble Supreme Court transferred the case from the court of District and Sessions Judge, Moradabad (U.P.) to the District & Sessions Court, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

4. The prosecution examined fifteen witnesses in all thereafter. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant d