The conviction for rape was upheld based on the prosecutrix's credible testimony, while the conviction under the SC/ST Act was quashed due to lack of evidence regarding the accused's knowledge of the victim's caste.

Judgment :

(Chandra Prakash Shrimali, J.)

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the accused/appellant viz. Saheb Ram @ Rajjo being aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 04.07.1994 passed by the learned Special Judge Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Sri Ganganagar (hereinafter to be referred as the 'trial court') in Case No.4/94 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Saheb Ram @ Rajjo), whereby he was convicted for the offences under Section 376 of IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘SC/ST Act’) and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with the fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo one month’s additional simple imprisonment.

2. Before addressing the main issue, it is necessary to clarify that as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nipun Saxena Vs. Union of India (Writ Petition No.565/2012) : 2019 (2) SCC 703, the identity of minor as well as of an adult victim of rape/sexual abuse must be protected. Therefore, in the present case, the adult female victim of rape will be referred as the ‘prosecutrix/victim’ henceforth.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the husband of the proxecutrix/victim took forth the share of land from the accused/appellant situated at village Prempura and on 29.08.1992 at around 05:00 PM, she went to the field of the accused/appellant for collecting grass, where he was roaming and asked her why she did not go to the other field to collect grass, to which she replied that other fields are far away and grass cannot be brought from there. Thereafter, when prosecutrix/victim started collecting grass, the accused/appellant caught hold of her, pinned her down, forcefully opened her salwar and sexually assaulted her. Upon her screaming loudly, the accused/appellant put his hand over her mouth and offered her some money to keep the alleged incident secrete, to which, she inflicted a sickle blow, but the same went vain. Subsequently, she returned to her home and told her in-laws and husband about the entire incident, however, due to unavailability of transport that night, she was unable to report the matter to the police on the same day; and therefore, lodged the FIR on the next day after the incident i.e. on 30.08.1992 at Police Station Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar for the offences under Section 376 of IPC read with Section 3(12) of SC/ST Act.

3.1. After a thorough investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet and the learned trial court framed charges for the offences under Section 376 of IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act against the accused/appellant. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 04.07.1994 convicted the accused/appellant for the offences mentioned above and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with the fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo one month’s additional simple imprisonment. Hence, this criminal appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused submitted that the incident took place on 29.08.1992 at around 05:00 PM; however, the FIR was lodged on 30.08.1992 at 02:00 PM with a significant delay and without any satisfactory explanation for such a delay, therefore, argued that the prosecutrix/victim lodged the FIR after deliberation, without any basis and with an intention of falsely implicating the appellant/accused.

4.1. Learned counsel for the appellant/accused also submitted that the statement of the prosecutrix/victim recorded before the learned trial court as PW-1 was corroborated by the medical evidence because in her statement, she stated that she received injuries on her back and other parts of the body; however, no such injuries are mentioned either in the medical report or in the FIR. It is further submitted that the story set out by the prosecutrix/victim is not supported by th