1. - These two appeals, one through Superintendent, Central Jail, Jaipur and another in representative capacity under Section 374 Cr.RC. by accused Sirraj Ahmed are directed against the judgment and order dated 23.3.1996 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Attrocities) Act Cases, Jaipur by which he has convicted the accused appellant for offence under Sections 376, 377, 384 and 292(2) (A) I.PC., and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment on the first count; to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default thereof, to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment on the second count : to undergo 2 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default thereof, to further undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment on the third court and to undergo two years imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment on the last count. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The trial court ordered that both the victims, namely, Shakuntala and Naina Devi shall get Rs. 10,000/- each as a measure of compensation.

2. Though the learned trial court has found the accused appellant guilty and also convicted him for offence under Section 312 IPC, yet, it appears to have escaped to pass an order sentencing the appellant under section 312 IPC.

3. The prosecutrix, namely Shakuntala, a young girl of about 18 years of age and Smt. Naina Devi, mother of Shakuntala belonging to scheduled caste, a poor beggar section of the society, who were the victims of continuous sexual assault by accused appellant Sirraj Ahmed on able bodied youth, after he forcibly took their absence photographs with him at the point of knife in a pre-planned and calculated manner, solely with his ill intention to use Shakuntala and her as an instrument of fulfilling his sexual lust, having left with no way ultimately after giving a cool thought, decided to make public the entire ill episode, resulting into lodging the First Information Report by Shakuntala.

4. Here, before us, accused Sirraj Ahmed is the only appellant, against whom the prosecutrix had lodged the first information report, Ex. P. 19. She has alleged that on a black day during summer vacations of 1992 while she was alone at her home, accused Sirraj Ahmed came there in the evening and closed the entire doors of her house. He also closed the doors of the upper story of her house and thereafter, at the point of knife while threatening her to kill, got her entire cloths put off and forcibly committed rape on her. Accused Sirraj also took the photographs of the commission of rape from his Camera already kept on a stool and told her that she will have to sleep with him whenever he would like to do so else he would make the photographs public. Thereafter, accused Sirraj Ahmed went on pertaining this sexual crime with her at her house and at his house situated in Hasanpura for about 5-6 months. In the mean-time, she became pregnant and Sirraj got her abortion in Merry Stopes Clinic. After few days, when she informed her mother of the commission of rape on her. Sirraj Ahmed showed her nacked photographs to her mother and started threatening her as well and started black mailing her. He also visited the person with whom she was engaged few days back and showed him her nacked photographs, as a result of which her engagement stood cancelled. After this incident, she and her mother bagged accused Sirraj and requested him with folded hands to return the photographs, thereupon, Sirraj demanded Rs. 70000/- as against return of photographs and negatives. Her mother gave him Rs. 8,000/-. The prosecutrix further alleged that Sirraj while showing her and her mother some nacked photographs of different girls told them that he is fond of doing such acts and it is his profession and that she will ha