JUDGMENT :

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State against the judgment dated 11.06.1996 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) Cases, Churu (‘trial court’) in Special Case No.48/94, whereby the accused-respondents were acquitted of the charges under Sections 450, 366 & 376 IPC, and Section 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act as well as Section 336 IPC read with Section 3(1) of the SC/ST Act; however, the accused-respondents were convicted by the learned trial court under Sections 147, 323 and 447 IPC. However, vide the impugned judgment, looking to the custody period already undergone by accused-respondent No.1-Ram Pratap @ Lilu and accused-respondent No.2-Ramniwas, they were directed to be released, while treating their custody period, already undergone by them, as the period of sentence for their conviction.

1.1 Vide the impugned judgment, except for the accused-respondent No.1-Ram Pratap @ Lilu and accused-respondent No.2-Ramniwas, for the conviction under Section 147 IPC, fine of Rs.200/-each was imposed upon rest of the accused-respondents; for the conviction under Section 447 IPC, a fine of Rs.100/-was imposed upon each of the accused-respondents; for the conviction under Section 323 IPC, a fine of Rs.200/-was imposed upon each of the accused-respondents; in default in payment of the aforementioned fine, each of the accused-respondents was directed to undergo ten days S.I., five days S.I. and ten days S.I., respectively.

2. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the appellant-State submits that a written report was lodged by one Mahaveer Prasad Meena (complainant – father of the prosecutrix) on 11.03.1994 at about 05:30 p.m., alleging therein that on 06.03.1994, in the midnight, while his daughter (prosecutrix) was sleeping in a room at home, accused-respondents, namely, Ram Pratap @ Lilu and Ramniwas came there and tucked a cloth in her mouth, and forcefully took her to the house of accused-respondent Ram Pratap @ Lilu; thereafter, both the accused, one by one, subjected the prosecutrix to the forcible sexual intercourse, and after committing such crime, they let her go; after being released from the clutches of the said accused persons, the prosecutrix raised hue and cry; whereupon one Smt. Ghewar and Smt. Bhagwani Devi (mother of the prosecutrix) and other persons came out of their house(s), whereafter, the prosecutrix narrated them the whole incident.

2.1 Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that after the alleged incident being complained of, the accused persons, came to the house of the complainant party and pelted stones/bricks on them, as a result whereof the members of the complainant party received several injuries.

2.2 Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that upon the incident in question came to the knowledge of the complainant (father of the prosecutrix), the aforementioned report was lodged by him; as per the complainant, on the date of lodging of the report, he came to know about the subsequent incident, as aforementioned, resulting into injuries to the members of the complainant party.

2.3 Learned Prosecutor also submits that on the basis of the aforementioned report, the police registered a case for the offences under Sections 376, 366, 452, 147, 149, 336 & 337 IPC and Section 3 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and the investigation commenced thereafter; after investigation, a charge-sheet under Sections 450, 376, 366A, 447, 147, 149, 336 & 323 IPC and Sections 3(1)(1-7)(12) & 3(2)(5) of the SC/ST Act, was filed before the concerned Magistrate; whereupon owing to the nature of the offences, the matter was transferred to the learned trial court, upon committal, for the necessary adjudication.

2.4 Learned Public Prosecutor further submits that upon the aforementioned charges being denied by the accused-respondents, they were made to stand the trial, and the trial accordingly commenced; in support of its case, the prosecutio