The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for evidence linking the crime to the victim's Scheduled Caste status under Section 3(2)(v) of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and the court's discretion in imposing the sentence under Section 376 IPC.

1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated, 16.12.1997 passed by the Special Judge, S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jalore (Camp Bhinmal), whereby he convicted the appellant of the offence under Sec, 376 IPC and Section 3(2) (v) of the S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, hereinafter referred-to as 'the Act' and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to further undergo two years' regorous imprisonment, the Court also directed that on depositing the amount of fine the same shall be paid to the prosecutrix Mst. Ramila as compensation.

2. Succintly stated the relevant facts are that on 24.11.1996, RW. 8 prosecutrix Mst. Ramila had gone to ease herself in an open field of the village Dhamsin alongwith her aunt's daughter Gavri, RW.1. Accused Manoher Singh arrived there, carrying a knife in his hand. He threatned to kill and, pinned her down on the ground and committed rape. The accused took bites on the neck, cheeks and breasts. She made a cry, which attracted her uncle father-in-law Sona and Gavri. They came and rescued her. Mst. Ramila lodged. First Information Report of the incident of Police Station, Raniwada. On this, police registered a case for the offences under Secs. 341, 323,324,342 and 376 IPC and under Section 3(2) (v) of the Act. She was examined by the medical officer, who prepared the report Ex.R9. The doctor opined that looking to the injuries on the body of the prosecutrix, the act of rape cannot be denied. The smear and swab were taken from the vagina, which were sealed and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. The site was inspected. After dsual investigation police laid a chargesheet in the Court of the learned Special Judge, S.C. & S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases, Jalore (Camp Bhinmal) for the aforesaid offences.

3. The accused denied the guilt and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of the case examined twelve witnesses and produced certain documents. In his statement under Section 313 Cr. PC., the accused pleaded that Raghu Nath Singh, nephew of Anop Singh, had assaulted him and, as such, his father had got a case registered against him. Anop Singh was pressurising for the compromise. He did not agree for the Compromise. He also stated that Pabu Bhil, husband of prosecutrix, used to work in the field of Anop Singh and it was at the instance of Anop Singh and it was at the instance of Anop Singh that a false and fabricated case has been framed against him. In support of his case, the accused examined his father Tag Singh as D.W. 1. The learned trial Judge, relying on the testimony of P.W. 8 Mst. Ramila corroborated by the medical and other evidence, held the appellant guilty of the offences under Section 376 IPC and 3(2) (v) of the Act and sentenced him as aforesaid.

4. We have heard Mr. PN. Mohanani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Ramesh Purohit, learned Public Prosecutor at length and carefully perused the record of the learned Trial Court in extenso.

5. It is contended that the testimony of P.W.8 Mst. Ramila is self contradictory inconsistent and untrustworthy. Her testimony does not find corroboration from any other reliable evidence. It is submitted that even P.W. 1 Gavri has not supported the prosecution case. It is also submitted that no injury on her private parts has beerrfound. Challenging the conviction under Sec.3(2) (v) of S.C./S.T. Act, it is contended that there is not evidence that appellant made a sexual assault on P.W.8 Ramila on the ground that she is person belonging to scheduled Caste.

6. On the other hand, it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that there is overwhelming oral and documentary evidence to show that the accused committed rape on RW.8 Mst. Ramila, With respect to conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 3(2) (v) of the Act, it is submitted that there is no dispute that the accused is a person not belonging