The conviction for rape under Section 376 IPC and under Section 3(1)(xii) of the SC & ST Act was not upheld due to lack of evidence; however, conviction for house trespass under Section 454 IPC was affirmed.

Judgment :

S.S. Mishra, J.

1. The present Criminal Appeal, filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C., is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.01.1998 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sundargarh in S.T. No.190 of 1996, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted the accused-appellant for the offences punishable under Section 454 /354 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (hereinafter ‘the Code’ for brevity) and Section 3 (1)(xii) of the S.C. and S.T.(PoA) Act, accordingly, sentenced him to undergo R.I. for three months besides fine of Rs.500/- on each count, in default, to further undergo R.I. for one month for the offences under the Code and further R.I. of six months with fine of Rs.1000/- in default, to further undergo R.I. for two months for the offence under (1)(xii) of the S.C. and S.T.(PoA) Act.

Prosecution case in brief:

2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded from the records, is that on 21.08.1995, at about 7:00 A.M., the victim was asleep inside her house, while her mother was engaged in work in the bari adjoining the house. At that time, the accused entered the room where the victim was sleeping, caught hold of her hand, and thereafter seized her by the waist. When she raised a cry, the accused gagged her by pressing a cloth over her mouth, thereby preventing her from making any further noise.

It is alleged that the accused then lifted her wearing apparel and had sexual intercourse with her against her will and without her consent. The victim managed to raise an alarm, upon which the accused fled from the spot. Later, at about 10:00 A.M. on the same day, the accused again came to her house, but her mother did not permit him to enter, forcing him to leave the premises.

Subsequently, at about 6:00 P.M. on the very same day, the victim went to the Nuagaon Police Out Post under Hatibari Police Station and submitted a written report before the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Shri Anadi Charan Jena. On the basis of the said report, investigation was initiated, and the accused was charged under Sections 454 and 376 of the Code, as well as Section 3 (1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The accused, however, denied the allegations levelled against him and pleaded complete innocence. The defence case is one of total denial, asserting that the accused has been falsely implicated at the instance of Smt. B. Radhika, the then Superintendent of Police, Sundargarh. It is contended that at her behest, the victim subsequently made allegations of rape in her statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., even though such an accusation did not find place in the initial First Information Report lodged by her. At this stance of denial the accused faced trial.

3. The prosecution in order to bring home charges examined as many as eleven witnesses including the victim, her mother, the doctors who examined the victim, and the I.O. along with other witnesses. However, no witnesses have been examined on behalf of defence.

Trial Court’s analysis of evidence and Judgement

4. The learned trial Court analysed the evidence on record in detail and returned the following findings:-

“9. It is only the victim girl who had made allegation in her examination-in-chief that accused committed sexual intercourse with her against her will and without her consent. Her evidence regarding rape does not get corroboration from the evidence of her mother or any other prosecution witnesses…………”

Further the learned trial Court by appreciating the evidence on record held that: -

“10. From the evidence on record, it appears that P.W.1 lodged a written report at Nuagaon Police Out Post, which has bee